<AWT Dev> Define JNIEXPORT as visibility default with GCC?

[Anthony Petrov]

Hi Coleen, Martin,

[ cc'ing awt-dev@ ]

Probably gcc can't process typedefs with visibility attributes 
specified, hence the changes to AWT. Generally they look good.

However, I'm concerned with the compatibility impact of this change. I 
suppose that 3rd-party JNI libraries could use such a pattern, too. And 
now their compilation may fail. I understand that this is just a source 
compatibility issue, not a binary compatibility. But I just want to make 
sure we're aware of it.

I'm also wondering if this is something that should be reviewed by CCC 
as well (which is still Oracle-internal :( ). Phil?

--
best regards,
Anthony

On 4/9/2013 5:49, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I'm sorry, I lost track of this and thought it was already pushed.  The 
> jni_md.h changes look good but I don't really understand why the awt 
> changes were made, or what they do.   Since the jdk doesn't usually push 
> using JPRT, I'm afraid to push this directly myself without a review 
> from someone from jdk8-dev at openjdk.com.  I have cc'ed them.   I think 
> someone from the tools and libraries group should review and push this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Coleen
> 
> On 4/8/2013 7:35 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> friendly ping.  I'd like to have an approve to push this (or have 
>> someone jprt for me).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com 
>> <mailto:martinrb at google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     The latest version of my webrev is here:
>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk8/JNIEXPORT/
>>     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emartin/webrevs/openjdk8/JNIEXPORT/>
>>     It includes this line:
>>
>>     Reviewed-by: coleenp, ddehaven, dcubed
>>
>>
>>     Ok to push?
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Coleen Phillmore
>>     <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
>>     <mailto:coleen.phillimore at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         The hotspot definitions of JNIEXPORT don't match in all the
>>         files to the JDK definition.   I think a hotspot bug should be
>>         filed to fix the jni_<cpu>.h definitions which now none of
>>         them match. After someone in core-libs checks this in, we'll
>>         update the hotspot files to match the final version and retest
>>         -fvisibility=hidden.
>>
>>         I don't remember why the JDK version wasn't fixed with the
>>         original -fvisibility=hidden work.
>>
>>         Coleen
>>
>>
>>         On 2/28/2013 3:56 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>
>>             On 2/28/13 11:57 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
>>
>>                 Has a bug been filed for this? -DrD-
>>
>>
>>             As mentioned earlier in this thread...
>>
>>             Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>             On 2/19/13 5:21 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>
>>                 I couldn't find a 'jdk' repo relevant bug for this
>>                 issue so I filed:
>>
>>                     8008509: 6588413 changed JNIEXPORT visibility for
>>                 GCC on HSX, jdk's
>>                              jni_md.h needs similar change
>>                 
>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8008509
>>                 https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8008509
>>
>>                 Coleen did the original work on 6588413 so I added her
>>                 to the "interest
>>                 list" for the new bug. The need for an update to the
>>                 jdk repo's jni_md.h
>>                 file was raised during the code review for 6588413,
>>                 but that detail appears
>>                 to have been dropped.
>>
>>                 Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>