OpenOffice 1.9.X and gcj
Wed Nov 24 12:44:00 GMT 2004
Caolan McNamara writes:
> 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
> int foo = 0;
> stuff[foo++] = new thingy
> where stuff ends up as
> stuff = null;
> stuff = 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
This is a really bad problem. Can you please, as a matter of
importance, construct a test case that we can duplicate for this bug.
I will fix it quickly.
More information about the Java