Name: rmT116609 Date: 09/25/2000


java version "1.3.0"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3.0-RC)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.0-RC, mixed mode)


Source code is as follows:

import javax.swing.*;

public class testSetIconImage
{
    public static void main (String args[])
    {
        JFrame testFrame = new JFrame();

        ImageIcon image = new ImageIcon("mtrx_icn.GIF");

        testFrame.setIconImage(image.getImage());

        testFrame.pack();
        testFrame.show();
    }
}

Running this code on a Solaris X86 machine. OS is Solaris 8 with all
applicable patches. Video display card is a Matrox G400. With 256 colors,
the above code works without a problem. However, if I have the board
configured for more that 256 colors, running the above code gives the
following:

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException: NullPointerException
        at sun.awt.motif.MFramePeer.pSetIconImage(Native Method)
        at sun.awt.motif.MFramePeer.setIconImage(MFramePeer.java:149)
        at sun.awt.motif.MFramePeer.<init>(MFramePeer.java:54)
        at sun.awt.motif.MToolkit.createFrame(MToolkit.java:138)
        at java.awt.Frame.addNotify(Frame.java:353)
        at java.awt.Window.pack(Window.java:365)
        at testSetIconImage.main(testSetIconImage.java:13)

I believe this has something to do with the motif libraries, except that
motif apps run fine when the video board is set to more than 256 colors.

I've looked through the bug database and found a similar bug at one
time where the color depth caused this same problem. Bug was reported
as fixed?

I submitted a bug report before, but it no longer shows up in the bug
report database. I assume this is because it was unreproducable. Hopefully
I've given you enough information. If not, feel free to contact me.

The driver is from a company called Xig, driver is called AcceleratedX,
version
5.0.3.

The board and monitor configured are:

Board = "matrox/mga-g400g16.xqa";
Monitor = "sony/cpd-e210.vda";

I contacted Xig about this problem and they claimed it was not their
problem.
(Review ID: 109730)
======================================================================