Is returning a value != '0' or '1' as jboolean from a JNI function legal?

Volker Simonis volker.simonis at gmail.com
Mon Aug 20 15:37:47 UTC 2018


On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/20/2018 12:22 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> So to summarize, my current view on this topic is:
>>  - JNI functions returning a jboolean are only allowed to return
>> JNI_TRUE/JNI_FALSE (or 1/0) according to the current JNI spcification.
>
> Now *I* am having trouble seeing where exactly the JNI spec says the domain of jboolean is
> (JNI_FALSE, JNI_TRUE). In "Primitive Types" [1] it says "The following definition is provided for
> convenience: JNI_FALSE, JNI_TRUE", but that does not restrict the domain, because those are
> "convenience" defines. And "Description" in the table says jboolean is "unsigned 8 bits", which
> seems to invite interpretation that all 8 bits are usable.
>
> John says [2]:
>
> "The JNI documents specify that, at least for returning values from native methods, a Java boolean
> (T_BOOLEAN) value is converted to the value-set 0..1 by first truncating to a byte (0..255 or maybe
> -128..127) and then testing against zero."
>
> ...which is what I am looking for, but I cannot find the "JNI document" that actually says that. I
> can see the idea of that in JVMS [3], but that seems to only apply to on-heap booleans, does that
> also extend to jboolean's? Maybe John can point out the JNI document where it is said explicitly?
>

Yes, you're right - there's no exact documentation for neither of the
two possible interpretations. A colleague just pointed me to the
definition of invokestatic in the JVMS [4] which has the following
sentence:

"If the native method returns a value, the return value of the
platform-dependent code is converted in an implementation-dependent
way to the return type of the native method and pushed onto the
operand stack."

But then again, it has this unfortunate "implementation-dependent"
which can be interpreted either way :(

[4] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se10/html/jvms-6.html#jvms-6.5.invokestatic

>
>>  - to code in Java_java_io_Console_echo() should be fixed (as
>> confirmed by Sherman later in this thread)
>
> Yes, that's a bug waiting to happen anyway.
>
>
>>  - normalization of native, off-heap 8-bit values to Java booleans as
>> currently implemented in the HotSpot (and fixed by JDK-8161720) is (1)
>> only for convenience to simply access to off-heap data in Unsafe, (2)
>> to implement better Java/Native integration in projects like Panama
>> and (3) to fix legacy JNI code which was developed under the
>> assumption that the advice in the "JNI Programmer's Guide &
>> Specification" book is specification relevant.
>
> Yes, the intent seems to be what you describe. But see above about the spec.
>
>
> -Aleksey
>
> [1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/jni/spec/types.html#primitive_types
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2016-August/024263.html
> [3] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se10/html/jvms-2.html#jvms-2.3.4
>


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list