RFR (XL) 8210385: Clean up JNI_ENV_ARG and factorize the macros for remaining vmTestbase/jvmti tests

[David Holmes]

Hi JC,

I skimmed through this and it seems fine to me.

Thanks,
David

On 11/09/2018 9:13 AM, JC Beyler wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Done! Anyone else motivated in looking at part 1 out of 4 to remove all 
> JNI_ENV* from our vmTestbase tests?
> 
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8210385/webrev.01/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210385/webrev.01/>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210385
> 
> Thanks!
> Jc
> 
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 2:07 PM Alex Menkov <alexey.menkov at oracle.com 
> <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Jc,
> 
>     The fix looks good.
>     The only note:
> 
>     test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/IsFieldSynthetic/isfldsin003/isfldsin003.cpp
> 
>     contains double jvmti initialization:
>     -    res = JNI_ENV_PTR(jvm)->GetEnv(JNI_ENV_ARG(jvm, (void **) &jvmti),
>     -        JVMTI_VERSION_1_1);
>     +    res = jvm->GetEnv((void **) &jvmti, JVMTI_VERSION_1_1);
>            if (res != JNI_OK || jvmti == NULL) {
>                printf("Wrong result of a valid call to GetEnv!\n");
>                return JNI_ERR;
>            }
> 
>     -    res = JNI_ENV_PTR(jvm)->GetEnv(JNI_ENV_ARG(jvm, (void **) &jvmti),
>     -        JVMTI_VERSION_1_1);
>     +    res = jvm->GetEnv((void **) &jvmti, JVMTI_VERSION_1_1);
>            if (res != JNI_OK || jvmti == NULL) {
>                printf("Wrong result of a valid call to GetEnv!\n");
>                return JNI_ERR;
>            }
>     Could you please remove one of them.
> 
>     --alex
> 
>     On 09/07/2018 12:22, JC Beyler wrote:
>      > Hi Alex,
>      >
>      > Sounds good to me, I'll aim between 40~50 files then :)
>      >
>      > Here is the jvmti/A-N* remaining refactoring of the JNI_ENV* /
>      > JVMTI_ENV* macros:
>      >
>      > I have updated the bug to reflect this:
>      >
>      > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8210385/webrev.01/
>     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210385/webrev.01/>
>      > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210385/webrev.01/>
>      > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210385
>      >
>      > Thanks again!
>      > Jc
>      >
>      >
>      > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM Alex Menkov
>     <alexey.menkov at oracle.com <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>
>      > <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com
>     <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     I think ~40-50 files per fix is my maximum :)
>      >
>      >     --alex
>      >
>      >     On 09/07/2018 11:37, JC Beyler wrote:
>      >      > Sounds good to me, would you prefer it in 4 webrevs of 1k
>      >     changes? Or 2
>      >      > webrevs of 2k changes?
>      >      >
>      >      > I can do either easily, so just let me know; your job as the
>      >     reviewer is
>      >      > harder for these :)
>      >      > Jc
>      >      >
>      >      > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 11:34 AM Alex Menkov
>      >     <alexey.menkov at oracle.com <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>
>     <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>>
>      >      > <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com
>     <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>
>      >     <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com
>     <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>>>> wrote:
>      >      >
>      >      >     Hi Jc,
>      >      >
>      >      >     I'd prefer to see the fix splitted to smaller parts.
>      >      >     The changes are quite simple, but it's just too many
>     files,
>      >     so it's
>      >      >     impossible (at least for me) to review them accurately.
>      >      >
>      >      >     --alex
>      >      >
>      >      >     On 09/07/2018 10:53, JC Beyler wrote:
>      >      >      > Hi all,
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      > I'm taking the risk to perhaps do something too
>     huge but
>      >     as it is
>      >      >     the
>      >      >      > same as the previous ones (and the last one!):
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      > It's 4k of changes, for that I apologize. I can
>     divide it
>      >     up in 2/3
>      >      >      > parts again if you want or we can just do it in one go
>      >     since now
>      >      >     some
>      >      >      > reviewers know what to expect. There still is a bit of
>      >      >     refactoring to
>      >      >      > the vmTestbase but this will in essence finish:
>      >      >      >    - Removing the JNI_ENV* and JVMTI_ENV* macros
>     for the
>      >     vmTestbase
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      > Webrev:
>      > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8210385/webrev.00/
>     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210385/webrev.00/>
>      >     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210385/webrev.00/>
>      >      >   
>       <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210385/webrev.00/>
>      >      >      >
>     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210385/webrev.00/>
>      >      >      > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210385
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      > Thanks for your reviews and let me know if you would
>      >     prefer me to
>      >      >     cut it
>      >      >      > up like I did the Get[A-F] & Get[G-Z] ones,
>      >      >      > Jc
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      > Ps: for the curious, then we can start cleaning up
>     the native
>      >      >     code a bit
>      >      >      > more sanely (example: JDK-8191519) and there will
>     be one
>      >     more webrev
>      >      >      > removing #ifdef cplusplus lingering in the vmTestbase
>      >     (JDK-8210481).
>      >      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > --
>      >      >
>      >      > Thanks,
>      >      > Jc
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > Jc
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thanks,
> Jc