RFR: (8031737) CHECK_NULL and CHECK_EXCEPTION macros cleanup

[Roger Riggs]

Hi Phil,

There was an earlier commit that updated java.net

8030875: Macros for checking and returning on exceptions

Maybe it will apply as a backport too?

Roger





On 2/13/14 4:50 PM, Phil Race wrote:
> That worked on Mac but I just found it doesn't build on Linux because 
> a macro-redefinition
>  warning is treated as an error there.
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8034912
>
> The early/original fix had removed the duplicate definition in
> src/share/native/java/net/net_util.h
>
> So the fix is to do the same in 8u :-
>
> ~/jdk8u-dev/jdk$ hg diff src/share/native/java/net/net_util.h
> diff --git a/src/share/native/java/net/net_util.h 
> b/src/share/native/java/net/net_util.h
> --- a/src/share/native/java/net/net_util.h
> +++ b/src/share/native/java/net/net_util.h
> @@ -42,9 +42,6 @@
>  #define NET_ERROR(env, ex, msg) \
>  { if (!(*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env)) JNU_ThrowByName(env, ex, msg) }
>
> -#define CHECK_NULL(x) if ((x) == NULL) return;
> -#define CHECK_NULL_RETURN(x, y) if ((x) == NULL) return y;
> -
>  /************************************************************************ 
>
>   * Cached field IDs
>   *
>
> A little surprised no else else found this already  (did they?)
> Anyway I need a review and Ok to push 8034912  to JDk 8 u
>
> -Phil.
>
> On 02/12/2014 10:21 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>> This looks fine.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11 2014, at 15:42 , Phil Race <philip.race at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a JDk8u webrev : -http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8031737.8u/
>>>
>>> -phil.
>>>
>>> On 2/11/14 2:28 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>>>> So since hg export/import doesn't apply cleanly and the dependency
>>>> chain seems, long and in order to have some consistency across the 
>>>> releases,
>>>> I think I should prepare a webrev which essentially backports 8031737
>>>> including its small changes to Version.c, if only because otherwise
>>>> I'd have to have a new bug ID that would not be forwarded ported
>>>> (one source of confusion) or even worse re-use 8031737  but not 
>>>> fully implement it
>>>>
>>>> Agreed ?
>>>>
>>>> -phil.
>>>>
>