more
This is a regression...it was working a few months ago, as I ran this just
before FOSDEM (and perhaps even more recently).
I'm using JamVM 1.4.3 and a very recent version of GNU Classpath from CVS.
--
Summary: NPE in java.util.logging
Product: classpath
--- Comment #12 from rafaels at redhat dot com 2006-03-20 15:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=11073)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11073&action=view)
test suite
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26668
--- Comment #11 from rafaels at redhat dot com 2006-03-20 15:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=11072)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11072&action=view)
updated patch
--
rafaels at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-15 19:42 ---
"I wasn't sure string literals were automatically interned by all JVMs. If
this is in fact part of the langauge spec then this is a non issue."
Yeah, this is required by the language specification.
--
tromey at g
--- Comment #2 from mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-15 12:59 ---
Thanks for this Rafael.
Splitting this in smaller parts would help evaluate things quicker (as would
adding a ChangeLog entry and following the coding convention).
Question about point #6. Although I agree this is a bi
Hi,
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 22:08, Sascha Brawer wrote:
> Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:30:55 +0100:
>
> >In the past you said that you thought that java.util.logging is still
> >alpha quality code which is one of the reasons it is not yet
> "Sascha" == Sascha Brawer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sascha> % cat java/util/logging/CVS/R*
Sascha> /cvsroot/classpath//classpath/java/util/logging
It is possible the `//' in the above causes the problem.
The Classpath CVSROOT compares against the regexp `^classpath'.
If you change the `//
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 16:44, Brian Jones wrote:
> Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BTW. Do you know why your commits do not appear on the commit-classpath
> > mailinglist? http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/commit-classpath/
>
> I'm trying to figure this out too. Doesn't appear to be a
Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:30:55 +0100:
>In the past you said that you thought that java.util.logging is still
>alpha quality code which is one of the reasons it is not yet included
>into libgcj. How do you feel about the code quality now?
> BTW. Do you know why your commits do not appear on the commit-classpath
> mailinglist? http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/commit-classpath/
I'm sorry, but I have no idea about this.
Brian> I'm trying to figure this out too. Doesn't appear to be a setting
Brian> issue on the list itself.
Tom Trom
> "Brian" == Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> BTW. Do you know why your commits do not appear on the commit-classpath
>> mailinglist? http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/commit-classpath/
Brian> I'm trying to figure this out too. Doesn't appear to be a setting
Brian> issue on the list it
Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW. Do you know why your commits do not appear on the commit-classpath
> mailinglist? http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/commit-classpath/
I'm trying to figure this out too. Doesn't appear to be a setting
issue on the list itself.
Brian
--
Brian Jones
Hi,
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 22:23, Sascha Brawer wrote:
> just for your information: I've checked in a bunch of bug fixes to the
> java.util.logging package. See the ChangeLog entries for details.
>
> I hope the ChangeLog is not too detailed, but for maintaining the code,
> it
Hi,
just for your information: I've checked in a bunch of bug fixes to the
java.util.logging package. See the ChangeLog entries for details.
I hope the ChangeLog is not too detailed, but for maintaining the code,
it might turn out to be useful to have that documentation available.
Best re
Am Montag, 2. September 2002 08:15 schrieb Mark Wielaard:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 01:46, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > Today I tried building the Classpath CVS trunk with jikes. It failed
> > building java.util.logging, since java.net.Socket doesn't have
> > sh
Hi,
On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 01:46, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Today I tried building the Classpath CVS trunk with jikes. It failed
> building java.util.logging, since java.net.Socket doesn't have
> shutdownInput. My solution was to disable java.util.logging in
> standard.omit. Did I d
Today I tried building the Classpath CVS trunk with jikes. It failed
building java.util.logging, since java.net.Socket doesn't have
shutdownInput. My solution was to disable java.util.logging in
standard.omit. Did I do something weird? I'm surprised this hasn't
bit any
n stuff.)
> As of java.util.logging -- by now, I've read Brian Gilstrap's code quite
> extensively. However, I did *not* change anything in my code so far,
> with one exception: a date format string in XMLFormatter.java, line 77.
And in this particular case you both agreed tha
doc/hacking.html be amended by a clarification that the term
"proprietary" means anything whose copyright has not been assigned to the
FSF, including GPLed and LGPLed code? However, in case GPL/LGPLed code
was fine to inspect, it might be worth mentioning, as well.
As of java.util.logging --
Hi,
On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 20:05, Brian Gilstrap wrote:
> Sascha wrote:
> >> (I really like some things in Lumberjack which I'd like to adapt,
> >> of course giving due credit. But the question basically applies
> >> to a lot of code, not only to Lumberjack).
>
> Brian Jones wrote:
>
> > I r
> "Sascha" == Sascha Brawer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sascha> Whatever the decision will be, I could check the testlets into
Sascha> Mauve (assuming I'll be allowed to commit changes).
You'll definitely be allowed to. Mauve is very welcoming.
I can tell you how to get an account if you do
Brian Gilstrap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:05:15 -0600:
>Were you expecting to take code, or were you planning (like I am) to
>learn from both sets of code and make changes to your code that you
>conclude are appropriate?
Only the latter.
-- Sascha
Sascha wrote:
>> (I really like some things in Lumberjack which I'd like to adapt,
>> of course giving due credit. But the question basically applies
>> to a lot of code, not only to Lumberjack).
Brian Jones wrote:
> I really don't know, credit must be given always. If it is more than
> 10
Sascha,
Thanks for the long assessment. In general, it seems like it is quite
even handed.
I had already responded to Anthony Green letting him know I'm not
interested in assigning copyright to the FSF at this time.
I would definitely be interested in exchanging thoughts on the API, and
appr
Sascha,
> I am extremely glad that you are interested in discussing the API
> and our respective implementations. Also, I totally agree with
> what you wrote about the advantages of working together. So, I am
> very much looking forward to doing this.
Great!
> An administrative question:
Sascha Brawer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:24:52 -0500:
>
> >> So, how do we proceed?
> >> (b) Merging:
> >
> >This is possible in due time, assuming Lumberjack authors agree on
> >license changes, copyright, etc.
>
> But -- it *is*
Brian,
I am extremely glad that you are interested in discussing the API and our
respective implementations. Also, I totally agree with what you wrote
about the advantages of working together. So, I am very much looking
forward to doing this.
An administrative question: Do people really want c
Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:24:52 -0500:
>> So, how do we proceed?
>> (b) Merging:
>
>This is possible in due time, assuming Lumberjack authors agree on
>license changes, copyright, etc.
But -- it *is* possible to look at (L)GPLed sources whose copyright have
no
Sascha Brawer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, how do we proceed?
>
> (a) Scrap my implementation,
We won't be scrapping your work.
> (b) Merging:
This is possible in due time, assuming Lumberjack authors agree on
license changes, copyright, etc.
> For my implementation, I tried to create
> java.util.logging:
> - Lumberjack <http://javalogging.sourceforge.net>
> - my implementation, planned for Classpath
Thanks for the pointer! I've browsed a bit in the Lumberjack code and
would like to share my impressions. Please be aware, though, that my
assessment mig
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 13:32, Anthony Green wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 08:54, Brian Gilstrap wrote:
> > Since Lumberjack is LGPL, is there anything special that would need to
> > be done to incorporate it into GNU Classpath?
>
> The license would have to change slightly. We use the GPL with
Brian Gilstrap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want to rehash something that is covered in a FAQ, so just
> point me to the FAQ if there is one. But:
>
> How does the above differ from the LGPL? Concrete examples are
> especially helpful.
You can create executables that include some porti
I wrote:
>>Since Lumberjack is LGPL, is there anything special that would need to
>>be done to incorporate it into GNU Classpath?
Anthony Green responded:
> The license would have to change slightly. We use the GPL with the
> following exception (blessed by the FSF):
>
> "Linking this lib
Anthony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 01:06, Sascha Brawer wrote:
> > I'd like to announce that a Free implementation of java.util.logging, the
> > logging framework of J2SE 1.4, is nearing completion. In case anyone
> > else has wor
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 01:06, Sascha Brawer wrote:
> I'd like to announce that a Free implementation of java.util.logging, the
> logging framework of J2SE 1.4, is nearing completion. In case anyone
> else has worked on this package, please send me a message so we can merge
> the
Anthony Green wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 01:06, Sascha Brawer wrote:
>
>>I'd like to announce that a Free implementation of java.util.logging, the
>>logging framework of J2SE 1.4, is nearing completion. In case anyone
>>else has worked on this package, pleas
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 08:54, Brian Gilstrap wrote:
> Since Lumberjack is LGPL, is there anything special that would need to
> be done to incorporate it into GNU Classpath?
The license would have to change slightly. We use the GPL with the
following exception (blessed by the FSF):
"Linking this
Hello,
I'd like to announce that a Free implementation of java.util.logging, the
logging framework of J2SE 1.4, is nearing completion. In case anyone
else has worked on this package, please send me a message so we can merge
the code. Otherwise, I'll do some final clean-up and
38 matches
Mail list logo
