Yet another case of new type[array] and parametrized type

Question

I suppose this is an often asked question, to which I seem not to be able to find a simple answer. I know of the "incompatibility" of arrays and generics, and yet in such a seemingly simple case I run into a mystery, or a compiler bug. Look at this warning:
Set<Integer>  C[];
foo/bar/some.java:1148: warning: [unchecked] unchecked conversion
found   : java.util.HashSet[]
required: java.util.Set<java.lang.Integer>[]
                C=new HashSet[H-L+1];So far so good, but precisely this *"Set<type>[]"* does not exists, does it? When I try to add a parametrized type to this new statement, compiler says:
Set<Integer>  C[];
foo/bar/some.java:1148: generic array creation
                C=new HashSet<Integer>[H-L+1];
                  ^
1 errorIn a regular case we can easy deal with the "unchecked" warnings, e.g. Effective Java 2nd Ed, Item 24 discusses this, but all this seem to be ignoring this case. When generic array creation is not permitted, than why this warning stating that *"java.type<typeparam>[] required"* appear, and how to resolve this for safety and correctness? Of course, I can still ignore the warning and do a few instanceof checks and casts, like before, but I am really curious how to transfer this into the new paradigm.
As much generics improve and help in many cases, I regret their arcane complexity. To paraphrase C.A.R. Hoare, the Java language itself becomes now the problem, not its solution.
Thomas

Answer 1

I wonder if we have someplace recent measure just an array stack against a current implementation of a set in Java? In JDK1.4 I remember array was several times faster, 350% faster if my memory serves me, and I do have the classic "inner loop" operation, very repetitive. I can live with the warning, what's the problem?
Of course all this are considerations fully aside of the issue at hand, that the JDK1.6 compiler prints a nonsense warning message that a parametrized array is expected, what is in fact illegal in current implementation of generics. Which is in my eyes severely faulty, but that would be yet another assault on the Braha Ivory Tower, wouldn't it?
Thomas