On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters <jwat...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> On Windows, the basic Java Integer types are defined as long and __int64 >> respectively. In particular, the former is rather problematic since it >> breaks compilation as the Visual C++ becomes stricter and more compliant >> with every release, which means the way Windows code treats long as a >> typedef for int is no longer correct, especially with -permissive- enabled. >> Instead of changing every piece of broken code to match the jint = long >> typedef, which is far too time consuming, we can instead change jint to an >> int (which is still the same 32 bit number type as long), as there are far >> fewer problems caused by this definition. It's better to get this over and >> done with sooner than later when a future version of Visual C++ finally >> starts to break on existing code > > Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Fix the code that is actually warning Compilation should be a good enough test for the `long` -> `jint` changes. These changes are supposed to address [this difference](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/overview/cpp-conformance-improvements-2019?view=msvc-170#overload-resolution-involving-integral-overloads-and-long-arguments) between MSVC behavior and the C++ standard. When compiled with `-permissive-` or with a compiler that puts more emphasis on standards conformance (like clang), the current code fails to compile. I verified some of the generated binaries by comparing the results of `dumpbin /all` before and after the change. Most of the time the changes were limited to timestamp, UUID and mangled function names. `Jaccesswalker.exe` had a few more changes because of a changed format string. None of the changed function names in client libs area are externally visible, but there are some observable changes to `c2v` functions exported from jvm.dll. I had to revert some of the `NULL`->`nullptr` changes to get this to compile; I assume this will be addressed before this PR is merged. Judging by the PR title, these changes don't belong here anyway. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14125#issuecomment-1600710570
