java.lang.VerifyError in generated code

Bug was that a portion of ReferencePointcut.concretize was not behaving
functionally but was mutating state.

	  	Language regression, or possible language improvement?

The problem was caused by moving name binding in pointcut declarations to 
happen before declare parents are evaluated.  Because of this, the 
compiler doesn't know that ContainerDescriptor isa Key when resolving 
the ContainerLoader.containerLoads reference.

The change in ordering was made to fix a bug reported in declare error 
and declare soft whose pcds where being evaluated before name binding 
had happened in the pointcut declarations.  Unfortunately, declare error 
and declare soft are concretized at the same time as declare parents 
(and all other declares ;-), so this move also led to the regression 
noted above.

Bugzilla Bug 42740
	  	declare error fails on pointcuts composed from multiple classes
Bugzilla Bug 42746
	  	within() pcd is confused for certain declare softs

and probably:
Bugzilla Bug 42739
	  	Compiler crash in ajc head (post 1.1.1 rc1)

error messages

	  	Regression: Cannot compile complex weaving anymore

- a compile-speed script
- a script that uses Jikes to incrementally compile AspectJ

This bug is a reversion from 1.1.0 and so was a high-priority to get fixed
before the 1.1.1rc2 release tommorrow.  The bug was caused by a
conflict between the implementation of perthis and a fix made in 1.1.1rc1
to the code for signature matching to handle inter-type declarations
correctly.  The fix was the addition of two null pointer checks.

I hope that the original reporter will file a bug report in bugzilla tomorrow
for tracking.

	  	throw derivative pointcuts not advised

- copies resources by default when using the Javac adapter
- does not copy resources unless specified when invoked via AjcTask
- copies injar resources always

	  	percflow aspects compiled from jars share one instance for all entry points

Also adding warning for resource-copying (36071; copyInJars, sourceRootCopyFilter)
I would like to disable entirely, but don't see and haven't gotten confirmation of behavior from last week's telephone call.

since we're not using ajc 1.0 anymore.  
Should revisit if we do.