 |
Author |
Topic: 0058 compiled applets don't run with M$ JVM (Read 842 times) |
|
toxi
|
0058 compiled applets don't run with M$ JVM
« on: Aug 13th, 2003, 6:42pm » |
|
casey came across this first, but i can confirm this too: any applet exported with rev.58 will not run with the microsoft JVM under IE on windows (XP). the console shows the following stack trace (e.g. using the P5 example "continuos lines"):
Code:Error loading class: continuous_lines
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: continuous_lines
at com/ms/vm/loader/URLClassLoader.loadClass
at com/ms/vm/loader/URLClassLoader.loadClass
at com/ms/applet/AppletPanel.securedClassLoad
at com/ms/applet/AppletPanel.processSentEvent
at com/ms/applet/AppletPanel.processSentEvent
at com/ms/applet/AppletPanel.run
at java/lang/Thread.run |
|
can anybody else please confirm or deny this?
|
http://toxi.co.uk/
|
|
|
fry
|
Re: 0058 compiled applets don't run with M$ JVM
« Reply #1 on: Aug 13th, 2003, 7:17pm » |
|
confirmed here..
that looks like some 1.3-specific code has made its way into bagel somehow. a NoClassDefError would show up if one of the necessary classes (not actually the main continuous_lines class it's complaining about) is not around. i'll try running with the sun 1.1 jvm and see if that provides a better error message.
the other problem could be that jikes is producing > 1.1 bytecode, though i think that would be more likely to give you an error with the verifier.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 13th, 2003, 7:24pm by fry » |
|
|
|
|
fry
|
Re: 0058 compiled applets don't run with M$ JVM
« Reply #2 on: Aug 22nd, 2003, 5:12am » |
|
i've looked into this further and it's actually a problem with jikes, the compiler we're using. seems that revision 1.18 not only doesn't produce 1.1-happy code, its option to force it to do so is broken:
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_ id=3418&group_id=10
at any rate, this will have to be sorted out before 59.
|
|
|
|
|
fry
|
Re: 0058 compiled applets don't run with M$ JVM
« Reply #3 on: Sep 1st, 2003, 1:54am » |
|
fixed for 0059.
|
|
|
|
|
|
