Bug#432541: eclipse-cdt FTBFS with gcj-4.2

[Andrew Haley]

Michael Koch wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:50:38PM +0100, Thomas Girard wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> A while ago, I wrote:
>>>>         Using the following pakages:
>>>>  * java-gcj-compat{,-dev} 1.0.69-2
>>>>  * ecj, ecj-gcj, libecj-java and libecj-gcj 3.3.0+0728-1
>>>>  * libgcj-bc, libgcj8{-1,-1-awt,-jar} 4.2.1-3
>>>>  * gcc-4.2-base 4.2.1-3
>>>>  * gcj-4.1-base, gcj-4.1, gij-4.1, libgcj7-1 4.1.2-16
>>>>  * libgcc1 1:4.2.2-3
>>>> eclipse-cdt compiles.
>>>>
>>>> Updating to sid, I reach a point where it no longer compiles:
>>>>  * java-gcj-compat 1.0.76-4 sets gcj-4.2 as the default gcj version
>>>>  * gcj-4.2, gij-4.2 and libgcj8-* are at version 4.2.1-3
>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 05:12:44PM +0100, Michael Koch replied:
>>> I have just tried this with SUN JDK 6, Icedtea, gcj 4.3, jamvm and cacao
>>> with the following result:
>>> * SUN JDK 6: Just works.
>>> * gcj-4.3: No output at all. Returns with exit code 13.
>>> * icedtea: No output at all. Returns with exit code 13. Exactly the same
>>>   as with gcj.
>>> * jamvm: Fails but prints quite some output. Main issue is that jamvm has
>>>   no real JAVA_HOME.
>>> * cacao: Fails but prints some output. Again an issue with an incomplete
>>>   JAVA_HOME provided by cacao.
>> We made progress on this issue with Michael; it turns out that using
>> eclipse natively compiled -gcj packages work around the FTBFS, for some
>> reason.
>>
>> Michael found out that only eclipse-rcp-gcj is needed, and that deleting
>> org.eclipse.core.runtime_3.2.0.v20060603.jar.so is enough to make the
>> compilation fails, while it works when it's there.
>>
>> So we now have a work-around to compile Eclipse plugins: install
>> eclipse-rcp-gcj.
>>
>> What's really weird is that icedtea, even though it does not use -gcj
>> packages, exhibit the very same behavior.
>>
>> Any idea on this?
> 
> I'm a bit ashamed. The solution was quiet simple. Added "-consolelog" to
> the arguments revealed the reason for this (and for some crashes of
> eclipse). I will fix that bug in eclipse packaging. This really makes me
> wonder why SUN JDK worked...

And what was the reason?  I need to know.

Andrew.