Bug 150517

Summary:	OpenOffice.org Package Manager segfaults with gcj
Product:	[openSUSE] SUSE Linux 10.1	Reporter:	Petr Mladek <pmladek>
Component:	OpenOffice.org	Assignee:	Michael Meeks <mmeeks>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	E-mail List <qa-bugs>
Severity:	Normal
Priority:	P5 - None	CC:	development-gcc, suse-beta
Version:	Beta 4
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Other
Whiteboard:
Found By:	Other	Services Priority:
Business Priority:		Blocker:	---
Marketing QA Status:	---	IT Deployment:	---
Bug Depends on:	153386
Bug Blocks:
Attachments:	Backtrace from our package. Problematic add-on package Working add-on package.

Description Petr Mladek 2006-02-13 17:06:33 UTC

OpenOffice.org has its own package manager. It helps user to add extra UNO-based OOo extensions. The Package Manager seqfaults on one package from the qatesttool.

How to reproduce the problem:
1. start ooffice
2. Select Tools/Package Manager...
3. Press the button Add
4. Select the attached capitalise.uno.pkg
5. Press the button Open

Then I get segfault. It is 100% reproducible with fresh OOo configuration and when gcj/gij is used as the JRE.

It does not happen with another package Basic_Addon.zip. Though, after you try to add the problematic capitalise.uno.pkg, the OOo UNO-package database is somewhat broken and OOo crashes when you try to access Tools/Package Manager.../My Packages.

Note: I am not sure. I think that this is the root of many errors reported by the qatesttool.

It happen also with the upstream package. However, it is specific to the gcj/gij that we use by default.

I'll attach a backtrace from our package.

Michael, how is it crytical?

What do you think? Is it a bug in OOo or in gcj?

Comment 1 Petr Mladek 2006-02-13 17:07:58 UTC

Created attachment 68128 [details]
Backtrace from our package.

Comment 2 Petr Mladek 2006-02-13 17:08:40 UTC

Created attachment 68130 [details]
Problematic add-on package

Comment 3 Petr Mladek 2006-02-13 17:09:05 UTC

Created attachment 68131 [details]
Working add-on package.

Comment 4 Richard Biener 2006-02-13 17:13:35 UTC

We don't support gcj and/or the java runtime.  Please try to reduce this to a sane testcase and report it upstream.

Comment 5 Michael Matz 2006-02-13 17:35:43 UTC

Well, Petr, it clearly shows that segfault being in the garbage collector.
At the point where it segfaults it can normally only happen if something
did randomly overwrite memory.  Perhaps valgrind is of some help?

Comment 6 Petr Mladek 2006-02-13 17:58:50 UTC

Just note that this bug is not as crytical for the testtool as I thought. The many errors reported by the testtool are caused by the test qatesttool/framework/basic/f_basic_protected_libraries.bas. It is broken and is ignored even by upstream.

This does not mean that we should ignore this bug :-)

Comment 7 Richard Biener 2006-02-14 11:26:26 UTC

Current stable (gcc-4.1.0_20060210-4) has a fix for gcc.gnu.org/PR13212, an issue that looks maybe related to your problem.  Can you make sure the problem reproduces with gcj from STABLE?

Comment 8 Petr Mladek 2006-02-14 14:57:15 UTC

I have found another crash that looks similar to gcc.gnu.org/PR13212.

Do you have the new gcc rpms available anywhere? They are still not available in autobuild. They probably were not checked in because of beta4.

Comment 9 Richard Biener 2006-02-14 15:56:58 UTC

They should be used by autobuild - at least I see packages being build with that version.

Comment 10 Petr Mladek 2006-02-15 19:00:44 UTC

They were in STABLE-BETA. I rather rebuilt the packages for STABLE via autobuild. Unfortunately, it did not help.

We should investigate it more. I could look at it later. Though, I am still investigating the other errors found by the qatesttool. I want to be sure that there is not any other more urgent bug. This could take some days.

Comment 11 Petr Mladek 2006-03-01 11:30:05 UTC

It is probably the same problem as in the bug #153386

Comment 12 Petr Mladek 2006-03-29 09:26:12 UTC

It helps to preload libgcj from the latest libgcj package => it is a duplicate of the bug #153386 => it will work on SL10.1-rc1/ NLD9-beta9.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 153386 ***