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

[Petr Pchelko]

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.