Bug 29743 - gjdoc generates different html on different arches
Summary: gjdoc generates different html on different arches
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: classpath
Classification: Unclassified
Component: gjdoc (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Julian Scheid
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-11-06 16:58 UTC by Ben Konrath
Modified: 2006-11-07 05:29 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:

Attachments
patch to gjdoc HEAD to make the package listing order consistent across builds (1.13 KB, patch)
2006-11-06 16:59 UTC, Ben Konrath 		Details | Diff
new version of patch with changelog (754 bytes, patch)
2006-11-07 05:29 UTC, Ben Konrath 		Details | Diff
Show Obsolete (1) View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ben Konrath 2006-11-06 16:58:21 UTC 
Gjdoc generates different html on i386 and on x86_64 when the -use flag is specified. This posses a problem for distributions that require packages to be multilib compatible (i.e. everything placed in /usr/share/ must be same across builds). Currently FC6 and RHEL-5 both have this requirement.

I tracked this problem down to gjdoc's use of HashMap.keySet().iterator() in HtmlDoclet (line 1842). Gjdoc's usage of these methods produces different ordering in the html package listings on i386 and on x86_64 with both GCJ (FC6 gcc-java-4.1.1-30) and Sun's VM (jdk1.5.0_06). Since both of these implementations produce the same results, I made a patch to gjdoc to correct this problem. Thanks.
Comment 1 Ben Konrath 2006-11-06 16:59:40 UTC 
Created attachment 12551 [details]
patch to gjdoc HEAD to make the package listing order consistent across builds
Comment 2 Ben Konrath 2006-11-07 05:29:24 UTC 
Created attachment 12559 [details]
new version of patch with changelog

I test this by generating javadocs for Eclipse with i386 and x86_64. It solves the original but I found another one. I'll file a new bug for the other issues I find when I have a chance to track them down. Thanks.