We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
take the two examples and run with debug solver. For explanation, we just changed the order of class.
class List{ Object[] elems; int a; List() { Object[] t = new Object[10]; this.elems = t; } } class MyA { String f; }
class MyA { String f; } class List{ Object[] elems; int count; List() { Object[] t = new Object[10]; this.elems = t; } }
import checkers.inference.qual.VarAnnot; @VarAnnot(9) class List{ @VarAnnot(5) Object @VarAnnot(4) [] elems; @VarAnnot(6) int a; List() { @VarAnnot(14) Object[] t = new @VarAnnot(12) Object @VarAnnot(11) [((@VarAnnot(10) int) (10))]; this.elems = t; } } @VarAnnot(20) class MyA { @VarAnnot(17) String f; }
import checkers.inference.qual.VarAnnot; @VarAnnot(7) class MyA { @VarAnnot(4) String f; } @VarAnnot(13) class List{ @VarAnnot(9) Object @VarAnnot(8) [] elems; @VarAnnot(10) int count; List() { Object[] t = new Object[10]; this.elems = t; } }
With MyA appear ahead, there is no VarAnnot generation in for t but the other case has.
t
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
take the two examples and run with debug solver. For explanation, we just changed the order of class.
With MyA appear ahead, there is no VarAnnot generation in for
t
but the other case has.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: