Re: SIGBUS in AllocSetAlloc & jdbc (fwd) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Peter T Mount |
---|---|
Subject | Re: SIGBUS in AllocSetAlloc & jdbc (fwd) |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.04.9905051927520.2109-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk Whole thread Raw |
List | pgsql-hackers |
This is a suggestion that came back from the java-linux mailing list. Peter -- Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgresJava PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 00:21:57 -0500 From: Chris Abbey <cabbey@home.net> To: Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk> Cc: Java Linux Mailing List <java-linux@java.blackdown.org> Subject: Re: SIGBUS in AllocSetAlloc & jdbc (fwd) This isn't a fix, but it'll get you around the problem for now... I kid you not, it works with some of the code I run here where people did the same switch logic around rmi. -=Chris java -Djava.version=1.1.7 your.class.here o o \___/ At 12:05 PM 5/3/99 +0100, Peter T Mount wrote: > >[ I'm cc'ing this to java-linux as this seems to be a problem with the >Linux PPC port - peter ] > >On Sun, 2 May 1999, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >[snip] > >> This morning I started to look into this. First, JDBC driver coming >> with 6.5b did not compile. The reason was my JDK (JDK 1.1.7 v1 on >> LinuxPPC) returns version string as "root:10/14/98-13:50" and >> makeVersion expected it started with "1.1". This was easy to fix. So I >> went on and tried the ImageViewer sample. It gave me SQL an exception: > >[snip] > >> P.S. Peter, do you have any suggestion to make JDBC driver under JDK >> 1.1.7? > >Ah, the first problem I've seen with the JVM version detection. the >postgresql.Driver class does the same thing as makeVersion, and checks the >version string, and when it sees that it starts with 1.1 it sets the base >package to postgresql.j1 otherwise it sets it to postgresql.j2. > >The exceptions you are seeing is the JVM complaining it cannot find the >JDK1.2 classes. > >As how to fix this, this is tricky. It seems that the version string isn't >that helpful. The JDK documentation says it returns the version of the >JVM, but there seems to be no set format for this. ie, with your version, >it seems to give a date and time that VM was built. > >Java-Linux: Is there a way to ensure that the version string is similar to >the ones that Sun produces? At least having the JVM version first, then >reform after that? > >The PostgreSQL JDBC driver is developed and tested under Linux (intel) >using 1.1.6 and 1.2b1 JVM's (both blackdown). I use Sun's Win32 1.2 JVM >for testing. The current driver works fine on all three JVM's, so it seems >to be the PPC port that has this problem. > >Peter > >-- > Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk > Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk >PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres > Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to java-linux-request@java.blackdown.org >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listadm@java.blackdown.org > > !NEW!-=> <*> cabbey at home dot net http://members.home.net/cabbey/ <*> "What can Microsoft do? They certainly can't program around us." - Linus -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version:3.12 http://www.geekcode.com GCS$/IT/PA$ d(-) s++:+ a-- C+++$ UL++++ UA++$ P++ L++ E- W++ N+ o? K? !P w---(+)$ O- M-- V-- Y+ PGP+ t--- 5++ X+ R tv b+ DI+++ D G e++ h(+) r@ y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
pgsql-hackers by date: