--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-09-29 21:55 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Also the date here is from before the big gcj-eclipse merge.
> So, maybe things are different now.
Sure, they are fixed [1].
[1]: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-08/msg01386.html
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-19 22:51 ---
This is an odd stack trace... it is hard to see how that code
could fail this way.
Perhaps building gcj without -O would help; I notice some other
oddities in the stack trace.
Also the date here is from before the b
