|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | LTC18198- IBM Java: "test" fails in jakarta-commons-lang for ppc, s390x, ppc64 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] SUSE LINUX 10.0 | Reporter: | Johannes Meixner <jsmeix> |
| Component: | Java | Assignee: | Kevin Corry <corryk> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | bugproxy, david_edwards, forgotten_HPSA3mZTN7, jsmeix |
| Version: | Beta 2 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PowerPC | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | Development | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
| Attachments: |
build log file for ppc
build log file for s390x build log file for ppc64 |
||
Created attachment 47938 [details]
build log file for ppc
Created attachment 47939 [details]
build log file for s390x
Created attachment 47940 [details]
build log file for ppc64
David, could this be related to a known difference between Sun Java and IBM Java? (If not, just reassign to me. Thanks.) Added IBM TAM to Cc: for tracking... Hello, to get this triggered and assigned please do the following a 1.) assign bugzilla to Kevin Corry, corryk@us.ibm.com 2.) request to mirror it to LTC bugzilla 3.) Kevin please open respective problem report in Eureka, the JAVA bugzilla tool. I reassigned it to corryk@us.ibm.com But I do not understand what 2. and 3. means in comment #6. Is it something which I should do or is it something which is done at IBM? ---- Additional Comments From chavez@us.ibm.com(prefers email via lnx1138@us.ibm.com) 2005-09-12 11:03 EDT ------- Can I please get the java -version output of the IBM JDK that is being used so I can submit that with a bug report to the IBM Java support? Also, any additional information on how the incorrect/expected output is generated or a small testcase would be good to have, too. Thanks. Re. comment #7 Kevin will initiate morroring and take care re . Java bugzilla Glen, Regarding the used IBM JDK version: Aren't the build log attachments sufficient? Here the RPM package versions are shown e.g. in the build log file for s390x: ------------------------------------------------ ... installing IBMJava2-JRE-1.4.2-50 ... installing IBMJava2-SDK-1.4.2-50 ... ------------------------------------------------ Regarding "how the incorrect/expected output is generated": Perhaps here the build log files may also help you. See near the end of those files. Regarding "a small testcase": I am afraid, at the moment I don't have such a testcase. ---- Additional Comments From chavez@us.ibm.com(prefers email via lnx1138@us.ibm.com) 2005-09-13 10:20 EDT ------- The bug reporting system for Java requires a java -version output string which will contain the build date/version and arch information but I'll see if I can get around it though it would be good to have. I didn't see that in any of the logs. Of course I can provide a "java -version" output - but not today. ---- Additional Comments From chavez@us.ibm.com(prefers email via lnx1138@us.ibm.com) 2005-12-08 12:55 EDT ------- As for the IBM JVM, it probably is the 32-bit and not 64-bit version? Since we had some other reports from Novell that the 64-bit version segfaults using the 2.6.13 based kernels you use (which have been reported to IBM Java support). In addition, the segfault problem mentioned can also be circumvented with disabling the JIT compiler (-Djava.compiler=NONE java option). Lastly, the upcoming Java 5 release seems to work far better with the new kernels. If you have an additional information or a testcase, please provide an update. Added maintainer of our JVM packages to Cc to have him informed. If this bug is still in openSUSE 10.2, please reopen and add that information. We're not going to fix this anymore for 10.0. |
In the log file while building jakarta-commons-lang it seems the ordering of the results is somewhat reversed: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- expected:<...elementData={<null>,<null>,<null>,<null>,<null>,<null>, <null>,<null>,<null>,<null>},size=0...> but was:<...size=0,elementData={<null>,<null>,<null>,<null>,<null>, <null>,<null>,<null>,<null>,<null>}...> ... expected:<...a=a,transientA=t...> but was:<...transientA=t,a=a...> --------------------------------------------------------------------------