OpenOffice 1.9.X and gcj

Caolan McNamara caolanm@redhat.com
Wed Nov 24 12:40:00 GMT 2004


On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 16:41 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> An access error like this is more likely to be PR 9369.
> This can be hacked around by making the constructor in question (if
> that is what it is) not `private'.
> 
> Caolan, if you can confirm that this is the problem, I'll make an OOo
> meta-bug and link this to it.

Going around turning things that seem to cause trouble into public has
allowed me to make much more progress, so that seems like the problem
there alright. 

I'm now using cvs head from a day or two ago rather than FC3's gcj to
get around the previous URL issue. Though with this version I've been
bitten a few times by seeming oddness with pre or post incremented
variables, 

int foo = 0;

...

stuff[foo++] = new thingy

where stuff ends up as

stuff[0] = null;
stuff[1] = the thingy

whether this is restricted to where foo is a class member or not I'm not
sure, I just did a mass rejigging of lines that used the return of ++
operations to be seperate increment and assign and continued on my merry
way.

C.



More information about the Java mailing list