RFR JDK-8005120

[Chris Hegarty]

On 19/12/2012 20:52, David Holmes wrote:
> Real sense of deja-vu here. Didn't we go through this same thing with
> the HPI socket routines?

Yes, and the networking native code too.

I think it is best to use socklen_t for the unix code. From what I can 
see making these changes, to use socklen_t, should be relatively localized.

-Chris.

>
> Depending on the OS (and version?) we should be using socklen_t not int
> and not uint32_t.
>
> David
>
> On 20/12/2012 2:35 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> I grabbed your patch, and with it I now see different warnings.
>>
>> ../../../../src/share/transport/socket/socketTransport.c: In function
>> 'socketTransport_startListening':
>> ../../../../src/share/transport/socket/socketTransport.c:310:40:
>> warning: pointer targets in passing argument 3 of 'dbgsysGetSocketName'
>> differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
>> ../../../../src/share/transport/socket/sysSocket.h:58:5: note: expected
>> 'uint32_t *' but argument is of type 'int *'
>> ../../../../src/share/transport/socket/socketTransport.c: In function
>> 'socketTransport_accept':
>> ../../../../src/share/transport/socket/socketTransport.c:371:33:
>> warning: pointer targets in passing argument 3 of 'dbgsysAccept' differ
>> in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
>> ../../../../src/share/transport/socket/sysSocket.h:41:5: note: expected
>> 'uint32_t *' but argument is of type 'int *'
>>
>> Do you see these in your build?
>>
>> -Chris.
>>
>> On 12/19/2012 03:42 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>>
>>> John - this is the debugger socket transport so cc'ing the
>>> serviceability-dev list as that is where this code is maintained.
>>>
>>> On 19/12/2012 15:36, John Zavgren wrote:
>>>> Greetings:
>>>> Please consider the following change to the two files:
>>>> src/share/transport/socket/sysSocket.h
>>>> src/solaris/transport/socket/socket_md.c
>>>> that eliminate compiler warnings that stem from the fact that the
>>>> variables that the native code passes to various system calls were not
>>>> declared correctly. They were declared as integers, but they must be
>>>> "unsigned" integers because they are used to define buffer lengths.
>>>> Were one to supply a negative value as an argument, it would be cast
>>>> into an unsigned "Martian" value and there'd be (hopefully) a system
>>>> call error.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> John Zavgren
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/jzavgren/8005120/
>>>