RFR[11u]: JDK-8257604: JNI_ArgumentPusherVaArg leaks valist

[Thomas Stüfe]

You are right, I'll re-add the protected removal. Thanks for reviewing.

Cheers, Thomas

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:06 AM Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 4/19/21 11:43 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> > Modified for 11u (I removed the irrelevant protection modifier change
> from
> > this downport):
>
> I would prefer to keep the backport exact, i.e. with "protected" removal.
> Reason: subsequent
> backports might depend on visibility change. Or does it break something
> else?
>
> > diff -r 530d75a38b9b -r 22ccf5b00e12 src/hotspot/share/prims/jni.cpp
> > --- a/src/hotspot/share/prims/jni.cpp   Mon Jul 30 16:35:54 2018 -0400
> > +++ b/src/hotspot/share/prims/jni.cpp   Mon Apr 19 11:35:58 2021 +0200
> > @@ -953,6 +953,10 @@
> >       set_ap(rap);
> >     }
> >
> > +  ~JNI_ArgumentPusherVaArg() {
> > +    va_end(_ap);
> > +  }
> > +
> >     // Optimized path if we have the bitvector form of signature
> >     void iterate( uint64_t fingerprint ) {
> >       if (fingerprint == (uint64_t)CONST64(-1)) {
>
> Otherwise, this looks good to me.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> -Aleksey
>
>