[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Remove including of link.h to improve portability

[Igor Nekrestyanov]

Looks fine to me.

-igor

On 3/20/12 3:30 PM, Phil Race wrote:
> I'm (still) OK with this .. one other reviewer please somebody.
>
> -phil.
>
> On 3/20/2012 1:37 AM, Jonathan Lu wrote:
>> Hello, could anyone please help to take a look at this splitted patch?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Jonathan
>>
>> 2012/3/13 Jonathan Lu <luchsh at linux.vnet.ibm.com 
>> <mailto:luchsh at linux.vnet.ibm.com>>
>>
>>     Hi Phil,
>>
>>     Thanks a lot for the review and testing, I've splited the patch
>>     into two parts, one for 2D repository and another for TL. Here's
>>     the patch for 2D repository:
>>
>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~luchsh/7152519/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eluchsh/7152519/>
>>
>>     So could anybody please help to do another review?
>>
>>     Thanks a lot!
>>
>>     - Jonathan
>>
>>
>>     On 03/13/2012 02:22 AM, Phil Race wrote:
>>
>>         I added two of those includes myself I believe and I doubt I
>>         did it unless needed
>>         and others apparently found it necessary too. So we need to be
>>         sure this is OK.
>>         However at least one of those I added dates back to Solaris 8
>>         being the build platform
>>         so maybe its no longer needed.
>>
>>         I ran the patch through our internal jprt build system on all
>>         platforms which
>>         for Solaris uses a recent Solaris 10 update and it built fine.
>>         I didn't notice
>>         any new warnings on the files I know anything about.
>>
>> > 7152519
>>         It was incorrectly submitted as awt, I moved it to 2D.
>>
>>         But I think you should split this into 2 patches.
>>         The above bug can be used for all the 2D ones and push to 2d.
>>
>>         The other one for the nio and security patches can go to the
>>         "tl" repo.
>>
>>         -phil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 3/11/2012 8:29 PM, Jonathan Lu wrote:
>>
>>             Bug 7152519 has been created for this patch.
>>
>>             - Jonathan
>>
>>             On 03/09/2012 07:49 PM, Jonathan Lu wrote:
>>
>>                 Hello 2d-dev,
>>
>>                 I find that link.h is included in several place of
>>                 OpenJDK code, mostly together with dlfcn.h, but this
>>                 caused portability problem in my testing on some Unix
>>                 platforms, such as AIX.
>>                 So far as I see OpenJDK only makes use of basic
>>                 POSIX.1-2001 compatible dynamic library manipulation
>>                 functions, such as dlopen, dlclose, dlsym, dlerr
>>                 functions, no other extensions found, so is link.h
>>                 still neccessary for current implementation? because
>>                 link.h is not found in the c-POSIX standard headers
>>                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_POSIX_library) and I
>>                 think this removal will be an enhancement for
>>                 portability, does that make sense?
>>
>>                 Here's the proposed patch, since most parts of it are
>>                 from Java2d so I post it here for discussion.
>>                 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~luchsh/remove_link_h/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eluchsh/remove_link_h/>
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eluchsh/remove_link_h/>
>>
>>                 And one more question, in
>>                 src/solaris/native/sun/java2d/x11/XRBackendNative.c I
>>                 found following comments
>>                  #ifdef __solaris__
>>                  /* Solaris 10 will not have these symbols at runtime */
>>                  #include <link.h>
>>
>>                 And in src/solaris/native/sun/awt/fontpath.c,
>>                  #include <dlfcn.h>
>>                  #ifndef __linux__ /* i.e. is solaris */
>>                  #include <link.h>
>>                  #endif
>>
>>                 I've built successfully on Ubuntu 11.10 32bit and
>>                 OpenSolaris Express 2010.11 x86, the patch seems to be
>>                 OK, but does anybody know the situation on Solaris
>>                 (e.g. Solaris 10) of this problem?
>>                 I assume it will also comply with POSIX.1-2001
>>                 standard, and provide all the required functions in
>>                 dlfcn.h, right?
>>
>>                 Cheers!
>>                 - Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>