Are there currently (Java 6) things you can do in Java bytecode that you can't do from within the Java language?
I know both are Turing complete, so read "can do" as "can do significantly faster/better, or just in a different way".
I'm thinking of extra bytecodes like invokedynamic, which can't be generated using Java, except that specific one is for a future version.
After working with Java byte code for quite a while and doing some additional research on this matter, here is a summary of my findings:
Execute code in a constructor before calling a super constructor or auxiliary constructor
In the Java programming language (JPL), a constructor's first statement must be an invocation of a super constructor or another constructor of the same class. This is not true for Java byte code (JBC). Within byte code, it is absolutely legitimate to execute any code before a constructor, as long as:
Another compatible constructor is called at some time after this code block.
This call is not within a conditional statement.
Before this constructor call, no field of the constructed instance is read and none of its methods is invoked. This implies the next item.
Set instance fields before calling a super constructor or auxiliary constructor
As mentioned before, it is perfectly legal to set a field value of an instance before calling another constructor. There even exists a legacy hack which makes it able to exploit this "feature" in Java versions before 6:
class Foo {
public String s;
public Foo() {
System.out.println(s);
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public Bar() {
this(s = "Hello World!");
}
private Bar(String helper) {
super();
}
}
This way, a field could be set before the super constructor is invoked which is however not longer possible. In JBC, this behavior can still be implemented.
Branch a super constructor call
In Java, it is not possible to define a constructor call like
class Foo {
Foo() { }
Foo(Void v) { }
}
class Bar() {
if(System.currentTimeMillis() % 2 == 0) {
super();
} else {
super(null);
}
}
Until Java 7u23, the HotSpot VM's verifier did however miss this check which is why it was possible. This was used by several code generation tools as a sort of a hack but it is not longer legal to implement a class like this.
The latter was merely a bug in this compiler version. In newer compiler versions, this is again possible.
Define a class without any constructor
The Java compiler will always implement at least one constructor for any class. In Java byte code, this is not required. This allows the creation of classes that cannot be constructed even when using reflection. However, using sun.misc.Unsafe still allows for the creation of such instances.
Define methods with identical signature but with different return type
In the JPL, a method is identified as unique by its name and its raw parameter types. In JBC, the raw return type is additionally considered.
Define fields that do not differ by name but only by type
A class file can contain several fields of the same name as long as they declare a different field type. The JVM always refers to a field as a tuple of name and type.
Throw undeclared checked exceptions without catching them
The Java runtime and the Java byte code are not aware of the concept of checked exceptions. It is only the Java compiler that verifies that checked exceptions are always either caught or declared if they are thrown.
Use dynamic method invocation outside of lambda expressions
The so-called dynamic method invocation can be used for anything, not only for Java's lambda expressions. Using this feature allows for example to switch out execution logic at runtime. Many dynamic programming languages that boil down to JBC improved their performance by using this instruction. In Java byte code, you could also emulate lambda expressions in Java 7 where the compiler did not yet allow for any use of dynamic method invocation while the JVM already understood the instruction.
Use identifiers that are not normally considered legal
Ever fancied using spaces and a line break in your method's name? Create your own JBC and good luck for code review. The only illegal characters for identifiers are ., ;, [ and /. Additionally, methods that are not named <init> or <clinit> cannot contain < and >.
Reassign final parameters or the this reference
final parameters do not exist in JBC and can consequently be reassigned. Any parameter, including the this reference is only stored in a simple array within the JVM what allows to reassign the this reference at index 0 within a single method frame.
Reassign final fields
As long as a final field is assigned within a constructor, it is legal to reassign this value or even not assign a value at all. Therefore, the following two constructors are legal:
class Foo {
final int bar;
Foo() { } // bar == 0
Foo(Void v) { // bar == 2
bar = 1;
bar = 2;
}
}
For static final fields, it is even allowed to reassign the fields outside of
the class initializer.
Treat constructors and the class initializer as if they were methods
This is more of a conceptional feature but constructors are not treated any differently within JBC than normal methods. It is only the JVM's verifier that assures that constructors call another legal constructor. Other than that, it is merely a Java naming convention that constructors must be called <init> and that the class initializer is called <clinit>. Besides this difference, the representation of methods and constructors is identical. As Holger pointed out in a comment, you can even define constructors with return types other than void or a class initializer with arguments, even though it is not possible to call these methods.
Create asymmetric records*.
When creating a record
record Foo(Object bar) { }
javac will generate a class file with a single field named bar, an accessor method named bar() and a constructor taking a single Object. Additionally, a record attribute for bar is added. By manually generating a record, it is possible to create, a different constructor shape, to skip the field and to implement the accessor differently. At the same time, it is still possible to make the reflection API believe that the class represents an actual record.
Call any super method (until Java 1.1)
However, this is only possible for Java versions 1 and 1.1. In JBC, methods are always dispatched on an explicit target type. This means that for
class Foo {
void baz() { System.out.println("Foo"); }
}
class Bar extends Foo {
#Override
void baz() { System.out.println("Bar"); }
}
class Qux extends Bar {
#Override
void baz() { System.out.println("Qux"); }
}
it was possible to implement Qux#baz to invoke Foo#baz while jumping over Bar#baz. While it is still possible to define an explicit invocation to call another super method implementation than that of the direct super class, this does no longer have any effect in Java versions after 1.1. In Java 1.1, this behavior was controlled by setting the ACC_SUPER flag which would enable the same behavior that only calls the direct super class's implementation.
Define a non-virtual call of a method that is declared in the same class
In Java, it is not possible to define a class
class Foo {
void foo() {
bar();
}
void bar() { }
}
class Bar extends Foo {
#Override void bar() {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
The above code will always result in a RuntimeException when foo is invoked on an instance of Bar. It is not possible to define the Foo::foo method to invoke its own bar method which is defined in Foo. As bar is a non-private instance method, the call is always virtual. With byte code, one can however define the invocation to use the INVOKESPECIAL opcode which directly links the bar method call in Foo::foo to Foo's version. This opcode is normally used to implement super method invocations but you can reuse the opcode to implement the described behavior.
Fine-grain type annotations
In Java, annotations are applied according to their #Target that the annotations declares. Using byte code manipulation, it is possible to define annotations independently of this control. Also, it is for example possible to annotate a parameter type without annotating the parameter even if the #Target annotation applies to both elements.
Define any attribute for a type or its members
Within the Java language, it is only possible to define annotations for fields, methods or classes. In JBC, you can basically embed any information into the Java classes. In order to make use of this information, you can however no longer rely on the Java class loading mechanism but you need to extract the meta information by yourself.
Overflow and implicitly assign byte, short, char and boolean values
The latter primitive types are not normally known in JBC but are only defined for array types or for field and method descriptors. Within byte code instructions, all of the named types take the space 32 bit which allows to represent them as int. Officially, only the int, float, long and double types exist within byte code which all need explicit conversion by the rule of the JVM's verifier.
Not release a monitor
A synchronized block is actually made up of two statements, one to acquire and one to release a monitor. In JBC, you can acquire one without releasing it.
Note: In recent implementations of HotSpot, this instead leads to an IllegalMonitorStateException at the end of a method or to an implicit release if the method is terminated by an exception itself.
Add more than one return statement to a type initializer
In Java, even a trivial type initializer such as
class Foo {
static {
return;
}
}
is illegal. In byte code, the type initializer is treated just as any other method, i.e. return statements can be defined anywhere.
Create irreducible loops
The Java compiler converts loops to goto statements in Java byte code. Such statements can be used to create irreducible loops, which the Java compiler never does.
Define a recursive catch block
In Java byte code, you can define a block:
try {
throw new Exception();
} catch (Exception e) {
<goto on exception>
throw Exception();
}
A similar statement is created implicitly when using a synchronized block in Java where any exception while releasing a monitor returns to the instruction for releasing this monitor. Normally, no exception should occur on such an instruction but if it would (e.g. the deprecated ThreadDeath), the monitor would still be released.
Call any default method
The Java compiler requires several conditions to be fulfilled in order to allow a default method's invocation:
The method must be the most specific one (must not be overridden by a sub interface that is implemented by any type, including super types).
The default method's interface type must be implemented directly by the class that is calling the default method. However, if interface B extends interface A but does not override a method in A, the method can still be invoked.
For Java byte code, only the second condition counts. The first one is however irrelevant.
Invoke a super method on an instance that is not this
The Java compiler only allows to invoke a super (or interface default) method on instances of this. In byte code, it is however also possible to invoke the super method on an instance of the same type similar to the following:
class Foo {
void m(Foo f) {
f.super.toString(); // calls Object::toString
}
public String toString() {
return "foo";
}
}
Access synthetic members
In Java byte code, it is possible to access synthetic members directly. For example, consider how in the following example the outer instance of another Bar instance is accessed:
class Foo {
class Bar {
void bar(Bar bar) {
Foo foo = bar.Foo.this;
}
}
}
This is generally true for any synthetic field, class or method.
Define out-of-sync generic type information
While the Java runtime does not process generic types (after the Java compiler applies type erasure), this information is still attcheched to a compiled class as meta information and made accessible via the reflection API.
The verifier does not check the consistency of these meta data String-encoded values. It is therefore possible to define information on generic types that does not match the erasure. As a concequence, the following assertings can be true:
Method method = ...
assertTrue(method.getParameterTypes() != method.getGenericParameterTypes());
Field field = ...
assertTrue(field.getFieldType() == String.class);
assertTrue(field.getGenericFieldType() == Integer.class);
Also, the signature can be defined as invalid such that a runtime exception is thrown. This exception is thrown when the information is accessed for the first time as it is evaluated lazily. (Similar to annotation values with an error.)
Append parameter meta information only for certain methods
The Java compiler allows for embedding parameter name and modifier information when compiling a class with the parameter flag enabled. In the Java class file format, this information is however stored per-method what makes it possible to only embed such method information for certain methods.
Mess things up and hard-crash your JVM
As an example, in Java byte code, you can define to invoke any method on any type. Usually, the verifier will complain if a type does not known of such a method. However, if you invoke an unknown method on an array, I found a bug in some JVM version where the verifier will miss this and your JVM will finish off once the instruction is invoked. This is hardly a feature though, but it is technically something that is not possible with javac compiled Java. Java has some sort of double validation. The first validation is applied by the Java compiler, the second one by the JVM when a class is loaded. By skipping the compiler, you might find a weak spot in the verifier's validation. This is rather a general statement than a feature, though.
Annotate a constructor's receiver type when there is no outer class
Since Java 8, non-static methods and constructors of inner classes can declare a receiver type and annotate these types. Constructors of top-level classes cannot annotate their receiver type as they most not declare one.
class Foo {
class Bar {
Bar(#TypeAnnotation Foo Foo.this) { }
}
Foo() { } // Must not declare a receiver type
}
Since Foo.class.getDeclaredConstructor().getAnnotatedReceiverType() does however return an AnnotatedType representing Foo, it is possible to include type annotations for Foo's constructor directly in the class file where these annotations are later read by the reflection API.
Use unused / legacy byte code instructions
Since others named it, I will include it as well. Java was formerly making use of subroutines by the JSR and RET statements. JBC even knew its own type of a return address for this purpose. However, the use of subroutines did overcomplicate static code analysis which is why these instructions are not longer used. Instead, the Java compiler will duplicate code it compiles. However, this basically creates identical logic which is why I do not really consider it to achieve something different. Similarly, you could for example add the NOOP byte code instruction which is not used by the Java compiler either but this would not really allow you to achieve something new either. As pointed out in the context, these mentioned "feature instructions" are now removed from the set of legal opcodes which does render them even less of a feature.
As far as I know there are no major features in the bytecodes supported by Java 6 that are not also accessible from Java source code. The main reason for this is obviously that the Java bytecode was designed with the Java language in mind.
There are some features that are not produced by modern Java compilers, however:
The ACC_SUPER flag:
This is a flag that can be set on a class and specifies how a specific corner case of the invokespecial bytecode is handled for this class. It is set by all modern Java compilers (where "modern" is >= Java 1.1, if I remember correctly) and only ancient Java compilers produced class files where this was un-set. This flag exists only for backwards-compatibility reasons. Note that starting with Java 7u51, ACC_SUPER is ignored completely due to security reasons.
The jsr/ret bytecodes.
These bytecodes were used to implement sub-routines (mostly for implementing finally blocks). They are no longer produced since Java 6. The reason for their deprecation is that they complicate static verification a lot for no great gain (i.e. code that uses can almost always be re-implemented with normal jumps with very little overhead).
Having two methods in a class that only differ in return type.
The Java language specification does not allow two methods in the same class when they differ only in their return type (i.e. same name, same argument list, ...). The JVM specification however, has no such restriction, so a class file can contain two such methods, there's just no way to produce such a class file using the normal Java compiler. There's a nice example/explanation in this answer.
Here are some features that can be done in Java bytecode but not in Java source code:
Throwing a checked exception from a method without declaring that the method throws it. The checked and unchecked exceptions are a thing which is checked only by the Java compiler, not the JVM. Because of this for example Scala can throw checked exceptions from methods without declaring them. Though with Java generics there is a workaround called sneaky throw.
Having two methods in a class that only differ in return type, as already mentioned in Joachim's answer: The Java language specification does not allow two methods in the same class when they differ only in their return type (i.e. same name, same argument list, ...). The JVM specification however, has no such restriction, so a class file can contain two such methods, there's just no way to produce such a class file using the normal Java compiler. There's a nice example/explanation in this answer.
GOTO can be used with labels to create your own control structures (other than for while etc)
You can override the this local variable inside a method
Combining both of these you can create create tail call optimised bytecode (I do this in JCompilo)
As a related point you can get parameter name for methods if compiled with debug (Paranamer does this by reading the bytecode
Maybe section 7A in this document is of interest, although it's about bytecode pitfalls rather than bytecode features.
In Java language the first statement in a constructor must be a call to the super class constructor. Bytecode does not have this limitation, instead the rule is that the super class constructor or another constructor in the same class must be called for the object before accessing the members. This should allow more freedom such as:
Create an instance of another object, store it in a local variable (or stack) and pass it as a parameter to super class constructor while still keeping the reference in that variable for other use.
Call different other constructors based on a condition. This should be possible: How to call a different constructor conditionally in Java?
I have not tested these, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Something you can do with byte code, rather than plain Java code, is generate code which can loaded and run without a compiler. Many systems have JRE rather than JDK and if you want to generate code dynamically it may be better, if not easier, to generate byte code instead of Java code has to be compiled before it can be used.
I wrote a bytecode optimizer when I was a I-Play, (it was designed to reduce the code size for J2ME applications). One feature I added was the ability to use inline bytecode (similar to inline assembly language in C++). I managed to reduce the size of a function that was part of a library method by using the DUP instruction, since I need the value twice. I also had zero byte instructions (if you are calling a method that takes a char and you want to pass an int, that you know does not need to be cast I added int2char(var) to replace char(var) and it would remove the i2c instruction to reduce the size of the code. I also made it do float a = 2.3; float b = 3.4; float c = a + b; and that would be converted to fixed point (faster, and also some J2ME did not support floating point).
In Java, if you attempt to override a public method with a protected method (or any other reduction in access), you get an error: "attempting to assign weaker access privileges". If you do it with JVM bytecode, the verifier is fine with it, and you can call these methods via the parent class as if they were public.
I have a plan to make a GUI as minimal as it gets. I have hit a brick wall where I cant find an answer or maybe some kind of workaround due to me being inexperienced in java.
I have searched quite a bit and only found ways to replace the last letter or number in a string but not in a method call
public static int question;
public static void main(String[] args) {
int questionNumber = Integer.parseInt(JOptionPane.showInputDialog("Enter project no."));
if (questionNumber>=7){
questionNumber=6;
}
else if(questionNumber<=3){
questionNumber=4;
}
question = questionNumber;
System.out.println(question);
System.out.println(questionNumber);
for(int i=4; i<=6;i++)
if(question==i){
Question4(); // want the number 4 to be the question variable
}
}
What I would expect is
for(int i=4; i<=6;i++)
if(question==i){
Question *the variable "question" here* ();
}
and have no idea if that is possible or how to get there.
Is it possible to reference different methods with one method call in
a for loop?
Yes. It depends upon what exactly you mean by different methods. Here are three general ways in which this can be achieved:
The Java enum facility allows developers to define constant-specific methods, which are different method bodies defined in each separate enum constant declaration. The actual method body that is invoked depends upon the actual enum constant upon which the method call is made (this is actually a specialization of the next bullet item).
Interfaces enable different method bodies to be defined in each separate implementation. In this way, the actual method body that is invoked depends on the instance of the actual implementation upon which the method call is made.
Another way to invoke different method bodies with "the same method call" is to perform method invocations using Java's Reflection Facility. Since Java is an Object-oriented development environment, a decision to use reflection should be made carefully. Reflection is (often much) slower, less readable, and clumsier than solutions that don't use it. Reflection also makes many errors which could be detected at compile-time detectable at run-time only.
In Java, the principle mechanisms of abstraction are classes and interfaces and, so, when thinking about a problem domain and resolving that into an object domain you should be thinking about how to design interfaces and classes that provide the most natural description possible.
You want to be able to invoke a method that corresponds to a particular question. A better way to approach this is not to abstract over it with the method call to a question, but to abstract over the questions themselves. Your project has questions, so this is a good clue that you should have a Question class.
Here is a skeletal solution to the problem that makes use of the Java enum facility (enums are a special kind of class). This solution is similar to the one suggested by Matthieu but it does not need reflection at all; instead it uses the first bullet item above and defines constant-specific methods (which is, itself, a specialization of the second bullet item above):
public enum Question {
QUESTION_1 {
#Override public String getText() {
return "This is the text for Question #1.";
}
},
QUESTION_2 {
#Override public String getText() {
return "This is the text for Question #2.";
}
},
:
:
QUESTION_N {
#Override public String getText() {
return "This is the text for the final question in the series.";
}
};
public abstract String getText();
}
This enum class defines one constant for each question in the series of questions (each of these constant declarations becomes an instance of the enum class Question at run-time). Each declaration defines a different method body for the method getText() which is overridden inside each enum constant.
The declaration public abstract... at the end of the enum informs the compiler that every enum constant must provide an implementation for the getText() method. If a developer adds a new question to the series but forgets to add a getText() method in it, the compiler will complain (this is a type of error that can be caught at compile-time with an object-based solution that could only be caught at run-time if reflection were used).
Here is a simple program to exercise your Question enum class. It simply prints out the name of each question constant followed by its question text:
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (Question question : Question.values()) { // here is the "one for loop"
String text = question.getText(); // here is the "one method call"
println(question.toString());
println(text);
}
}
No reflection is used. Instead, natural abstraction mechanisms of Java's type system are able to achieve the desired goal of invoking a separate method body for each question.
Using map in this situation is most easiest solution. You should learn how to use them and how they works but, this is more about design now. If you want pass some parameters into your method take a look on Consumer, BiConsumer or even Function class provided by java. Check this example how it could implementation looks with Runnable that takes no parameters.
Map<Integer, Runnable> map = new HashMap<>(); // creating Map variable
// registering questions
map.put(1, () -> {
System.out.println("Question #1");
});
int questionNumber = 0;// get option id
if (map.containsKey(questionNumber)) { // first check if question is registered
map.get(questionNumber).run(); // get runnable that is registered with exact questionNumber and run it
} else {
// print invalid question number
}
You can use reflection:
try {
Method m = MyClass.class.getDeclaredMethod("Question"+questionNum);
m.invoke(this);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
// Handle
}
But you should handle the exception properly, because it will most probably fail one day or another.
You can also use an enum to define each behavior and call the appropriate:
private static enum EnQuestion {
Question1 {
public void run(MyClass instance) {
// ...
}
},
Question2 {
...
},
...
QuestionN {
...
};
public void run(MyClass instance);
}
The enum has to be static so you can't access MyClass protected/private fields and methods.
Then call it:
EnQuestion.values()[numQuestion].run(this);
I do know the syntactical difference between overriding and overloading. And I also know that overriding is run-time polymorphism and overloading is compile-time polymorphism. But my question is: "Is overloading is really compile-time polymorphism? Is the method call really solving at compile time?". To clarify my point, let's consider an example class.
public class Greeter {
public void greetMe() {
System.out.println("Hello");
}
public void greetMe(String name) {
System.out.println("Hello " + name);
}
public void wishLuck() {
System.out.println("Good Luck");
}
}
Since all of the methods greetMe(), greetMe(String name), wishLuck() are public, they all can be overriden(including overloaded one), right? For example,
public class FancyGreeter extends Greeter {
public void greetMe() {
System.out.println("***********");
System.out.println("* Hello *");
System.out.println("***********");
}
}
Now, consider the following snippet:
Greeter greeter = GreeterFactory.getRandomGreeter();
greeter.greetMe();
The getRandomGreeter() method returns a random Greeter object. It may either return an object of Greeter, or any of its subclasses, like FancyGreeter or GraphicalGreeter or any other one. The getRandomGreeter() will create the objects either using new or dynamically load the class file and create object using reflection(I think it is possible with reflection) or any other way that is possible. All of these methods of Greeter may or may not be overriden in subclasses. So the compiler has no way to know whether a particular method(overloaded or not) is overriden. Right? Also, wikipedia says on Virtual functions:
In Java, all non-static methods are by default "virtual functions".
Only methods marked with the keyword final, which cannot be overridden,
along with private methods, which are not inherited, are non-virtual.
Since, virtual functions are resolved at run-time using dynamic method dispatch, and since all non private, non final methods are virtual(whether overloaded or not), they must be resolved at run-time. Right?
Then, How can overloading still be resolved at compile-time? Or, is there anything that I misunderstood, or am I missing?
Every 'Greeter' class has 3 virtual methods: void greetMe(), void greetMe(String), and void wishLuck().
When you call greeter.greetMe() the compiler can work out which one of the three virtual methods should be called from the method signature - ie. the void greetMe() one since it accepts no arguments. Which specific implementation of the void greetMe() method is called depends on the type of the greeter instance, and is resolved at run-time.
In your example it's trivial for the compiler to work out which method to call, since the method signatures are all completely different. A slightly better example for showing the 'compile time polymorphism' concept might be as follows:
class Greeter {
public void greetMe(Object obj) {
System.out.println("Hello Object!");
}
public void greetMe(String str) {
System.out.println("Hello String!");
}
}
Using this greeter class will give the following results:
Object obj = new Object();
String str = "blah";
Object strAsObj = str;
greeter.greetMe(obj); // prints "Hello Object!"
greeter.greetMe(str); // prints "Hello String!"
greeter.greetMe(strAsObj); // prints "Hello Object!"
The compiler will pick out the method with the most specific match using the compile-time type, which is why the 2nd example works and calls the void greetMe(String) method.
The last call is the most interesting one: Even though the run-time type of strAsObj is String, it has been cast as an Object so that's how the compiler sees it. So, the closest match the compiler can find for that call is the void greetMe(Object) method.
Overloaded methods can still be overridden, if that is what you ask.
Overloaded methods are like different families, even though they share the same name. The compiler statically chooses one family given the signature, and then at run time it is dispatched to the most specific method in the class hierarchy.
That is, method dispatching is performed in two steps:
The first one is done at compile time with the static information available, the compiler will emit a call for the signature that matches best your current method parameters among the list of overloaded methods in the declared type of the object the method is invoked upon.
The second step is performed at run time, given the method signature that should be called (previous step, remember?), the JVM will dispatch it to the most concrete overridden version in the actual type of receiver object.
If the method arguments types are not covariant at all, overloading is equivalent to having methods names mangled at compile time; because they are effectively different methods, the JVM won't never ever dispatch them interchangeably depending on the type of the receiver.
What is polymorphism?
Acc. to me: if an entity can be represented in more than one forms, that entity is said to exhibit polymorphism.
Now, lets apply this definition to Java constructs:
1) Operator overloading is compile time polymorphism.
For example, + operator can be used to add two numbers OR to concatenate two strings. it's an example of polymorphism strictly saying compile-time polymorphism.
2) Method overloading is compile time polymorphism.
For example, a method with same name can have more than one implemntations. it's also a compile-time polymorphism.
It's compile-time because before execution of program compiler decides the flow of program i.e which form will be used during run-time.
3) Method overriding is run-time polymorphism.
For example, a method with same signature can have more than one implemenations. it's a run time polymorphism.
4) Base class use in place of derived class is run time polymorphism.
For example, an interface reference can point to any of it's implementor.
It's run-time because the flow of program can't be known before execution i.e. only during run-time it can be decided that which form will be used.
I hope it clears a bit.
Overloading in this respect means that the type of the function is statically determined at compile time as opposed to dynamic dispatch.
What really happens behind the scenes is that for a method named "foo" with types "A" and "B" two methods are created ("foo_A" and "foo_B"). Which of them is to be called is determined at compile-time (foo((A) object) or foo((B) object) result in foo_A being called or foo_B). So in a way this is compile-time polymorphism, although the real method (i.e. which implementation in the class hierarchy to take) is determined at runtime.
I have strong objection to call method overloading as compile time polymorphism.
I agree that method overloading is static binding(compile time) but i didn't see polymorphism in that.
I tried to put my opinion in my question to get clarification. you can refer this link.
Since each method call includes the target method signature it seems to me that the class verifying step could tell by analysing the target whether its invoking a static, virtual etc and do the right thing ?
Is having 4 byte codes a waste of 3 byte codes or is this merely self documenting if one dumps a class file using javap ?
If you're talking about invokeinterface, invokespecial, invokestatic, and invokevirtual, there are differences between them. The effects on the stack for a start.
Let's assume you have only invoke opcode for both virtual and static. Let's assume in compile time you have
Test {
public static void test(Test t) {
// static method
}
}
and somewhere a call to this static with pseudo bytecode
push t
jmp Test.test(T)V
Now let's assume someone uses another Test class in runtime
Test {
public void test(Test t) {
// obj call
}
}
In this case jmp Test.test(T)V is still valid. The problem is that it will mess up the stack. Two different opcodes allow to catch this problem link time.
This would have been possible. However, it would add extra cost every time one of the instructions is interpreted. So performance would be harmed for very little advantage.
It has been argued that separate instructions improve security, by reducing the chances of confusing the VM. Not sure I'm convinced by that.
you need this opcodes because at the time the bytecode references for methods are laid out, they only contain symbolic references to entries in the constant pool. To resolve these references, you need to know on which type you need to resolve: for example, the difference between invokespecial and invokevirtual is static vs dynamic binding . For invokespecial you resolve on the type of the reference, not the class of the object. This information cannot be gleaned without the compiler putting in a special opcode to distinguish the methods. In java the code is typically linked dynamically, which is what forces these opcodes.
At least invokespecial is needed to be a separate instruction since java allows explicitly calling the super implementation of an overridden method:
class Super {
public void m() { }
}
class Sub {
public void m() {
super.m();
}
}
The call in Sub has to be an invokespecial since it would otherwise just call itself and run out of stack.
I think This debate was unnneccesary as java have this design decision. Not sure but you might want to look at one more What they call user defined data endpoints : invokedynamic