RFR 8235225: Replace CHECK_0 with CHECK_NULL for non-integer returning methods

[Harold Seigel]

Thanks David!

Harold

On 2/26/2020 6:06 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 27/02/2020 5:08 am, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>
>> Nice! Looks good to me!
>
> +1
>
>> I’m assuming we still don’t know of a way to have the compiler 
>> warn/error when the types don’t match?
>
> When I filed the bug I tried all sorts of hacky ways to define CHECK_0 
> so that we had an expression that evaluated to 0 but which might have 
> caused some kind of type error or warning when used as a pointer type, 
> but was unable to do so.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>> Cheers,
>> Mikael
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 5:52 AM, Harold Seigel 
>>> <harold.seigel at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review this change to replace CHECK_0 with CHECK_NULL in 
>>> functions that return oops or pointers and replace CHECK_0 with 
>>> CHECK_false in functions that return bool.
>>>
>>> Open Webrev: 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8235225/webrev/index.html
>>>
>>> JBS Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8235225
>>>
>>> The fix was regression tested by running Mach5 tiers 1 and 2 tests 
>>> and builds on Linux-x64, Solaris, Windows, and Mac OS X, by running 
>>> Mach5 tiers 3-5 tests on Linux-x64, and JCK lang and VM tests on 
>>> Linux-x64.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Harold
>>>
>>