<AWT Dev> [9] Review request: JDK-8035640 JNU_CHECK_EXCEPTION should support c++ JNI syntax

Anthony Petrov anthony.petrov at oracle.com
Mon Feb 24 04:21:00 PST 2014


Hi Petr,

The fix looks fine to me.

--
best regards,
Anthony

On 2/24/2014 4:21 PM, Petr Pchelko wrote:
> Hello, Alan.
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
>> This looks okay to me. One suggestion is to use #endif /* __cplusplus */ so that it's consistent with the other usages (also makes it a bit easier when there are nested ifdefs).
> Updated the fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchelko/9/8035640/webrev.01/
>
>> As regards logistics then jdk9/dev might be the more suitable forest to push this to. I suggest this because it looks to me that jdk9/client is pulling down changes from jdk9/dev very regularly (which is good). On the other hand there doesn't appear to be regular integrations from jdk9/client to jdk9/dev yet. I see changes in jdk9/client from mid-December that has still not been pushed to jdk9/dev. It's just a suggestion to ensure that the changes get to both forests in timely manner.
> No problem. I think we could easily wait until the next integration while dependent fixes are being reviewed. I'll push this into dev forest.
>
> With best regards. Petr.
>
> On 24.02.2014, at 16:10, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/02/2014 09:02, Petr Pchelko wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Please review the fix for the issue:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035640
>>> The fix is available at:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchelko/9/8035640/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> In AWT code we have quite a lot of C++ sources, but JNU_CHECK_EXCEPTION macros could not be used there, because the JNI syntax is different in C++.
>>> If approved I'll integrate this fix into the client forest, because we need this in client to fix parfait issues.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> With best regards. Petr.
>> This looks okay to me. One suggestion is to use #endif /* __cplusplus */ so that it's consistent with the other usages (also makes it a bit easier when there are nested ifdefs).
>>
>> As regards logistics then jdk9/dev might be the more suitable forest to push this to. I suggest this because it looks to me that jdk9/client is pulling down changes from jdk9/dev very regularly (which is good). On the other hand there doesn't appear to be regular integrations from jdk9/client to jdk9/dev yet. I see changes in jdk9/client from mid-December that has still not been pushed to jdk9/dev. It's just a suggestion to ensure that the changes get to both forests in timely manner.
>>
>> -Alan.
>


More information about the awt-dev mailing list