RFR(M): 8167457: Fixes for InetAddressImpl native coding on Windows

[Michael McMahon]

Christoph,

I would prefer to not push these native code change to JDK 9 at this stage.
They look fine for JDK 10 though. Consider them both reviewed.

Thanks
Michael.

On 26/01/2017, 10:02, Langer, Christoph wrote:
>
> Hi Chris, Michael,
>
> as I consider this change final from my side and the jdk10 forest is 
> open now, I guess it is a good point to come back to this.
>
> I personally would prefer if I could still submit it to jdk9, given 
> that it is automatically consolidated to jdk10 and the code base would 
> remain the same. The change set is only a cleanup to the 
> Inet*AddressImpl.c coding and should be quite manageable.
>
> The same goes for this one: 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2016-December/010571.html
>
> In any case, I'd like you to decide this now and give me a review in 
> short term, that I can get it out of my head. J
>
> Thanks & Best regards
>
> Christoph
>
> *From:*Langer, Christoph
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2016 15:57
> *To:* net-dev at openjdk.java.net
> *Subject:* RFR(M): 8167457: Fixes for InetAddressImpl native coding on 
> Windows
>
> Hi again,
>
> after pushing the change for 8171077 
> (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/24f8703890b2), I have 
> updated my patch for 8167457 and I have also updated the bug 
> description to reflect the reduced scope.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167457
>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8167457.0/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eclanger/webrevs/8167457.0/>
>
> The change now merely is code cleanup which should not change the 
> current behavior apart from removing the isspace(hostname[0]) check 
> and the isDottedIPAddress check in 
> Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_lookupAllHostAddr. But testing lets me 
> think it is not needed any longer for the supported Windows versions 
> of JDK9.
>
> Same as with 8167420, from my point of view this change is ready to 
> push and it runs nightly in our builds/tests of OpenJDK on several 
> platforms. Though I guess you want to postpone this to JDK10, I'd be 
> glad if you could still consider it for JDK9. But I won't pressure 
> otherwise ;-)
>
> Thanks & Best regards
>
> Christoph
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/attachments/20170126/28500578/attachment-0001.html>