Review for 8130344

[David Holmes]

On 13/07/2015 6:06 PM, Jean-Francois Denise wrote:
> Thank you,
> I am removing the null check and throw.

Why are you removing them ??

David

> JF
>
> On 13 Jul 2015, at 08:06, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2015 2:45 AM, Jean-Francois Denise wrote:
>>> Thanks Alan,
>>> I had read the spec from https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/jni/spec/functions.html#array_operations
>>> And it was not clear.
>>
>> FYI the spec has just been updated to clarify that the New<Primitive>Array functions can throw OOME if they return NULL. However the spec now also clarifies that an implementation that can both return NULL and post an exception can choose not to post the exception (a concession to existing VMs that only return NULL because the spec was inconsistent as to when OOME should be posted.)
>>
>> So you do need to check for NULL, however I think it would be more appropriate to throw OOME in that case as that is the only reason NULL would be returned AFAICS.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> David H.
>> --------
>>
>>> On 10 Jul 2015, at 18:34, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2015 16:46, Jean-Francois Denise wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> asking review for this bug fix.
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jfdenise/JDK-8130344/
>>>>>
>>>> I assume if JNI's NewByteArray returns NULL then it does so with a pending OOME. You might want to double check the JNI spec on this. If it guarantee it then you might need not need the null check in getStringBytes.
>>>>
>>>> The change to Image.c looks okay. In other areas of the libraries we have macros to do this.
>>>>
>>>> -Alan.
>>>
>