Re: glibj-generics-latest.zip on builder old?

On 6 Nov 2006, at 05:31, Michael Koch wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 01:45:09AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 01:11 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 10:12 -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote:
>>>> On 11/1/06, Mark Wielaard <mark <at> klomp.org> wrote:
>>>>> Looking through the log it is:
>>>>> 1729. ERROR in ../../classpath/java/util/EnumSet.java (at line  
>>>>> 252)
>>>>>         return copyOf((EnumSet<T>) other);
>>>>>                ^^^^^^
>>>>> The method copyOf(EnumSet<T>) is ambiguous for the type EnumSet<T>
>>>>
>>>> So do we reckon this is a Classpath bug or an ecj issue? Andrew,
>>>> presumably -generics builds for you - how does your ecj version
>>>> compare to the one on builder?
>>>
>>> This seems to have been fixed now. Although I am not sure how that
>>> happened precisely. The ecj version used on builder is: Eclipse Java
>>> Compiler 0.722, 3.3.0 milestone-3
>>
>> OK, sorry, my mistake. I wasn't looking at the right log file. It  
>> seems
>> to be broken for current ecj CVS. So I made builder use the installed
>> ecj for now (v_585_R31x, 3.1.2 release) and now it compiles also on
>> builder again.
>>
>> If it really is a bug in the ecj (org.eclipse.jdt.core) CVS  
>> version then
>> we should create a bug report. Could someone familiar with EnumSet  
>> take
>> a look?
>
> Afaik the Harmony people had a similar bug with ecj and reported this.
> I dont have a link yet but I can look into this tonite.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
> -- 
> http://www.worldforge.org/
>

Don't know if my other post reached the list or not (I can't see it  
in my archives), but
the problem is that there are two copyOf methods:

copyOf(EnumSet<T>)
copyOf(Collection<T>)

where the latter calls the former, if an instanceof EnumSet succeeds.

Things still seem to be broken on builder.  I'm guessing 3.1.2 is too  
old, as problems
with the java.util.concurrent stuff seems to have been reintroduced  
(we went from ~95%
to ~26%, which is worse than an out-of-date version).

Cheers,
--
Andrew :)