Which version of Hadoop and in which part of the build is this occurring? I've tried to build 2.3.0 on Fedora Rawhide, though I have other test failures in the build that I'm trying to resolve. Running the javadoc:javadoc target completes normally at least, however.

I'll try to prepare reproducer tomorrow.

(In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #0)
> Additional info:
> I reproduced this on x86_64 only, i386 seems to work.

Other architectures are probably affected too.  I didn't see build failures there because hadoop build generates javadocs only when built on x86_64.

Reprocucer:

wget http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/repo/pkgs/hadoop/hadoop-2.2.0-2e01e27.tar.gz/96b2a80a6ffb25f3798427ca1f23f87f/hadoop-2.2.0-2e01e27.tar.gz
tar xf hadoop-2.2.0-2e01e27.tar.gz
find hadoop-common-2e01e27e5ba4ece19650484f646fac42596250ce -name \*.java >sources
javadoc -d target @sources

Reproducible with:
java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1.8.0.0-2.b132.fc21.x86_64

Is there any progress on this bug?

Re-assigning to Elliott.

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle.
Changing version to '22'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22

Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Can still reproduce on F24 following the steps in comment 4:


java.lang.AssertionError
        at com.sun.tools.javac.util.Assert.error(Assert.java:126)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.util.Assert.check(Assert.java:45)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.code.SymbolMetadata.setDeclarationAttributesWithCompletion(SymbolMetadata.java:161)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.code.Symbol.setDeclarationAttributesWithCompletion(Symbol.java:215)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.comp.MemberEnter.actualEnterAnnotations(MemberEnter.java:952)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.comp.MemberEnter.access$600(MemberEnter.java:64)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.comp.MemberEnter$5.run(MemberEnter.java:876)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.comp.Annotate.flush(Annotate.java:143)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.comp.Annotate.enterDone(Annotate.java:129)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.comp.Enter.complete(Enter.java:512)
        at com.sun.tools.javac.comp.Enter.main(Enter.java:471)
        at com.sun.tools.javadoc.JavadocEnter.main(JavadocEnter.java:78)
        at com.sun.tools.javadoc.JavadocTool.getRootDocImpl(JavadocTool.java:186)
        at com.sun.tools.javadoc.Start.parseAndExecute(Start.java:346)
        at com.sun.tools.javadoc.Start.begin(Start.java:219)
        at com.sun.tools.javadoc.Start.begin(Start.java:205)
        at com.sun.tools.javadoc.Main.execute(Main.java:64)
        at com.sun.tools.javadoc.Main.main(Main.java:54)
100 errors
100 warnings

java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1.8.0.92-5.b14.fc24.x86_64

This is due to be fixed in OpenJDK 9, but upstream has no plans to backport this fix to OpenJDK 8. See JDK-8038263.

Have you spoken to upstream about it? If so, is there a link to the discussion?

I spoke with the upstream author over email. He explained that since this fix is a large refactoring, there is too much risk of breaking projects that use type annotations to justify backporting to OpenJDK 8.

(In reply to Elliott Baron from comment #13)
> I spoke with the upstream author over email. He explained that since this
> fix is a large refactoring, there is too much risk of breaking projects that
> use type annotations to justify backporting to OpenJDK 8.

Should we close this as CANTFIX then?

(In reply to Deepak Bhole from comment #14)
> (In reply to Elliott Baron from comment #13)
> > I spoke with the upstream author over email. He explained that since this
> > fix is a large refactoring, there is too much risk of breaking projects that
> > use type annotations to justify backporting to OpenJDK 8.
> 
> Should we close this as CANTFIX then?

Sure.