[10] JBS: 8167408: Invalid critical JNI function lookup

[David Holmes]

On 1/11/2017 1:03 PM, dean.long at oracle.com wrote:
> Much better.  But why does the test need -Xbatch -Xcomp?  To me this 
> doesn't look like a compiler-only issue.  The test should give the same 
> result with -Xint right?  Adding runtime alias for their input...

AFAICS this should be a completely compiler and platform agnostic issue. 
Good to add tests but they shouldn't be restricted to only 32-bit 
Windows (especially as we no longer support it or do promoted builds for 
it, or even build in Mach5!).

Thanks,
David

> dl
> 
> 
> On 10/31/17 12:37 PM, jamsheed wrote:
>> Hi Dean,
>>
>> Thank you for the review,
>>
>> tested with a test case, previously it was not working for 
>> windows-x86, now it works.
>>
>> revised webrev with test 
>> case:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcm/8167408/webrev.01/
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jamsheed
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 31 October 2017 02:18 AM, dean.long at oracle.com wrote:
>>> I think you need a native test for Windows x86 that defines 
>>> JavaCritical methods with various signatures (especially arrays) to 
>>> make sure this is working correctly.
>>>
>>> dl
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/30/17 9:45 AM, jamsheed wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> request for review,
>>>>
>>>> jbs : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167408
>>>>
>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcm/8167408/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> (contributed by Ioannis Tsakpinis)
>>>>
>>>> desc:
>>>>
>>>> -- it starts with JavaCritical_ instead of Java_;
>>>> -- it does not have extra JNIEnv* and jclass arguments;
>>>> -- Java arrays are passed in two arguments: the first is an array 
>>>> length, and the second is a pointer to raw array data. That is, no 
>>>> need to call GetArrayElements and friends, you can instantly use a 
>>>> direct array pointer.
>>>>
>>>> updated arg_size calculation wrt above points.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jamsheed
>>>>
>>>
>>
>