This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 100198 - Expression steps return values history shows wrong data for constructors
Summary: Expression steps return values history shows wrong data for constructors
Status: VERIFIED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: debugger
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Code (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Martin Entlicher
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-04-06 10:40 UTC by ehucka
Modified: 2007-06-22 11:01 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description ehucka 2007-04-06 10:40:30 UTC
NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 200704051800)
1.6.0; Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM 1.6.0-b105
Linux version 2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 running on i386

Example:

System.out.println((msgMemory.format (new Object[] {
                                      new Long (total),
                                      new Long (free),
                                      new Integer (taken)})));

If I pass through all methods in this expression by Step Over Expression 'Return
values history' node in Local variables view will contain items like:

return <init>()  void  void

probably showing return values of the constructors but return value of
constructor is constructed object.
There should be:

return <init>()  Long  #number or
return Long()    Long  #number
Comment 1 Martin Entlicher 2007-04-06 13:04:31 UTC
This needs to be further explored. So far it looks like the constructor call has
really void return value. I'll verify this and create a request for JDI to
return the object that is constructed.
I have a plan to replace <init> with the name of the constructor...
Comment 2 Martin Entlicher 2007-05-23 15:02:43 UTC
This is not fixable in NetBeans. The return value of the constructor is really
<void value> according to JDI.
I've submitted defect #6561156 for that.
It will start to work correctly after that JDI defect is fixed.
Comment 3 ehucka 2007-06-22 11:01:02 UTC
verified