RFR: (8031737) CHECK_NULL and CHECK_EXCEPTION macros cleanup

[Phil Race]

Yeah sorry about that. It built on Windows and Mac but not Linux as i 
found out today.

-phil.

On 2/13/14 5:36 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Looks good.   Sorry I didn't catch this earlier and I was counting on 
> the test build :)
>
> Mandy
> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/c58c6b0fbe34
>
> On 2/13/2014 1:50 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.
>>>>>
>>
>