[Bug libgcj/21326] seg fault in _Jv_Linker

[Bug libgcj/21326] seg fault in _Jv_Linker

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-13 18:41 -------
I think this a dup of bug 24251 which was just fixed on the mainline, if you
want to try again, that would be nice.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21326

[Bug libgcj/21326] seg fault in _Jv_Linker

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-01 15:17 -------
Fixed.


-- 

tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.0.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21326

[Bug libgcj/21326] seg fault in _Jv_Linker

[rspencer at x10sys dot com]

------- Additional Comments From rspencer at x10sys dot com  2005-05-04 19:48 -------
Okay, after fixing some makefile bugs, the workaround suggested by Tom worked.

Feel free to close this now unless you want to track down the SIGSEGV.

Reid

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21326

[Bug libgcj/21326] seg fault in _Jv_Linker

[rspencer at x10sys dot com]

------- Additional Comments From rspencer at x10sys dot com  2005-05-04 16:55 -------
One other note. Shouldn't the segfault in _Jv_Linker be fixed anyway?
Dereferencing a point of value 0x01 isn't likely to be valid in any circumstances?

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21326

[Bug libgcj/21326] seg fault in _Jv_Linker

[rspencer at x10sys dot com]

------- Additional Comments From rspencer at x10sys dot com  2005-05-03 22:16 -------
I don't see how that is possible on the application side as the source code is
100% Java and it is all compiled with the same options (there's only one
compilation command that compiles all sources). Perhaps you are suggesting that
libgcj is compiled differently from the application?  If so, shouldn't the
default compilation flags automatically work correctly with libgcj? The only
flags given are "-g -02".

So, I tried your suggestion. I compiled JING with HotSpot 1.4.2. It compiled
fine to .class files via javac 1.4.2.  I compiled the .class files (one command
line again) with GCJ using the -findirect-dispatch option. GCJ gave hundreds of
errors. Most of the errors were about "finalized field 'xyz' may not have been
initialized".  That sounds more like a warning to me, but I wouldn't know. I
take it that GCJ doesn't like foreign compiled .class files?

I'm not sure where to go from here except to give up on GCJ. Any other suggestions?

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21326

[Bug libgcj/21326] seg fault in _Jv_Linker

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-03 18:29 -------
I didn't download the source to try this out.
But based on the stack trace, I think the problem is probably that
a class compiled with the C++ ABI is referring to an org.xml class.
This doesn't work, as these classes are compiled with the BC ABI
(i.e., -findirect-dispatch).

This is unfortunate, but necessary to support java.endorsed.dirs.
The restriction that a C++ ABI class can't directly refer to a BC ABI class
is unlikely to be lifted.

The fix is to compile your program with -findirect-dispatch.
(But note that at the moment this only works when compiling from .class)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21326

[Bug libgcj/21326] seg fault in _Jv_Linker

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
            Summary|_Jv_Linker                  |seg fault in _Jv_Linker


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21326