RFR: JDK-8013736: [launcher] cleanup code for correctness

[Kumar Srinivasan]

On 5/2/2013 10:17 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> This is global fix creep, but ...

:(

>
> these macros are also found in the hotspot sources.
> I would rewrite all the macros in the jdk to adopt the blessed style
> do { ... } while(0)
> and remove all comments in the jdk of the form
>  /* next token must be ; */
> If you want a macro that does nothing at all, you should define it
> do {} while (0)
> instead of defining it to the empty string.
I am not following, could you be more explicit on how this applies to

-#define NULL_CHECK0(e) if ((e) == 0) { \
+#define NULL_CHECK_RV(e, rv) if ((e) == 0) { \
      JLI_ReportErrorMessage(JNI_ERROR); \
-    return 0; \
+    return rv; \
    }
  
-#define NULL_CHECK(e) if ((e) == 0) { \
-    JLI_ReportErrorMessage(JNI_ERROR); \
-    return; \
-  }
+#define NULL_CHECK0(e) NULL_CHECK_RV(e, 0)
  
+#define NULL_CHECK(e) NULL_CHECK_RV(e, )
+


>
>
>     I would also be inclined to change
>     == 0
>     to
>     == NULL
>

Yes will take care of this, as well as Alan suggestion added a check for 
malloc return.

>     This seems like another occasion to use the weird
>
>     do { ... } while(0)
>
>     trick to make the macro behave more like a statement.
>
>     I might obfuscate the macro parameters to make collisions less
>     likely, e.g. e => N_C_RV_e
>

You want me to rename the macro parameter e to N_C_RV_e ? or something else
say ncrve to avoid collision ?

Kumar

>
>
>
>
>     On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Kumar Srinivasan
>     <kumar.x.srinivasan at oracle.com
>     <mailto:kumar.x.srinivasan at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         Please review simple fixes for code correctness in the launcher.
>
>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8013736/webrev.0/
>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eksrini/8013736/webrev.0/>
>
>         Thanks
>         Kumar
>
>
>