On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:48:53 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles <szald...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Pre-existing: Man, I cannot grok the complex return code handling, tbh. >> >> We have the local `ret` variable holding a return code. We also hand codes >> to CHECK_EXCEPTION_LEAVE as macro argument. But we don't hand codes to >> CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_LEAVE. LEAVE uses the locally defined `ret` instead of >> getting the return code as argument. CHECK_EXCEPTION_LEAVE modifies the >> local `ret`, but CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_LEAVE does not. >> >> CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_LEAVE does not set `ret`. So, in case of an error, it >> would cause the launcher to return OK, but this does not happen because the >> local `ret` gets initialized to 1 before the first call to >> CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_LEAVE (line 566 resp. 560). Not sure if this was >> intentional, but it surely is very brittle. We rely on the content of `ret`, >> and that changes several times throughout JavaMain. >> >> CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_LEAVE argument is named CENL_exception, which I don't >> understand. >> >> To confuse matters more, the logic for internal error codes and the launcher >> return code is reversed: internally, 0 means error, and externally, 0 means >> success. And we only use numerical literals (`1`, `0`) instead of clearly >> named constants. >> >> This may be food for another RFE, to keep this patch minimal. But a good >> solution, to me, would be like this: >> >> - have the same logic for return codes (1 = error, 0 = success) to ease >> understanding >> - have clearly named constants (e.g. "LAUNCHER_OK" 0, "LAUNCHER_ERR" = 1) >> - have the LEAVE macro take the launcher return code as argument >> - have all xxx_LEAVE macros pass in LAUNCHER_ERR to LEAVE >> - call the final LEAVE with LAUNCHER_OK >> - optionally, define something like "LEAVE_ERR" and "LEAVE_OK" that call >> LEAVE with either LAUNCHER_ERR or LAUNCHER_OK, for more concise coding. >> >> For this patch, I think the return code logic is okay, but I would feel >> better if others double-checked. > >> This may be food for another RFE, to keep this patch minimal. But a good >> solution, to me, would be like this: >> >> * have the same logic for return codes (1 = error, 0 = success) to ease >> understanding >> * have clearly named constants (e.g. "LAUNCHER_OK" 0, "LAUNCHER_ERR" = 1) >> * have the LEAVE macro take the launcher return code as argument >> * have all xxx_LEAVE macros pass in LAUNCHER_ERR to LEAVE >> * call the final LEAVE with LAUNCHER_OK >> * optionally, define something like "LEAVE_ERR" and "LEAVE_OK" that call >> LEAVE with either LAUNCHER_ERR or LAUNCHER_OK, for more concise coding. >> >> For this patch, I think the return code logic is okay, but I would feel >> better if others double-checked. > > @tstuefe Agreed, I can look into opening another issue to track this after we > fix the regression. @SoniaZaldana I plan to review this shortly. It's an important issue that slipped through due to insufficient tests. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18786#issuecomment-2104216259
