RFR(S): 8010190: os_windows missing winsock initialization

[Nils Eliasson]

np. I can agree the code looks better that way. Updating while waiting 
for a second review.

Thanks David!

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neliasso/7034299/webrev.04/

//Nils E

On 2013-03-22 00:00, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Nils,
>
> Looks functional.
>
> Stylistically I'd prefer to see a bool function that is explicitly 
> tested rather than using a form that has to be the last thing in 
> init_2().  But I'll leave that for the second reviewer to decide.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 21/03/2013 11:35 PM, Nils Eliasson wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>> If there is only one consumer of this then how did we suddenly start
>>> to hit uninitialized paths ? Has that consumer changed which methods
>>> it uses?
>>
>> I started in the compiler team and develop on windows. From the
>> beginning no one had even bothered implemented the functions needed for
>> streaming the graphs, so I did that. But I missed the initialization,
>> probably because it was already initialized from other code.
>>
>> Taking a closer look at this I notice WSAStartup is also called from:
>> ./jdk/src/windows/demo/jvmti/hprof/hprof_md.c
>> ./jdk/src/windows/native/java/net/net_util_md.c
>> ./jdk/src/windows/transport/socket/socket_md.c
>>
>>>
>>>> New webrev:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neliasso/7034299/webrev.02/
>>>
>>> The code simplification to only initialize from init_2 seems fine.
>>>
>>> I'm still a bit concerned about the potential for initialization
>>> failures though - is there a reason to not simply have initSock return
>>> a boolean and have os_init2 return JNI_ERR on failure?
>>>
>> No there isn't. I'll add it right away. I don't expect any failures
>> since the JDK is using it as well, and we don't see any problems there.
>>
>> Also bumped the WSA version requested to 2.2, the same as in the JDK
>> (WinXP, Win98, Win95 OSR2 and later).
>>
>> New webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neliasso/7034299/webrev.03/
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> //Nils Eliasson
>>