On Jan 10 2014, at 10:09 , Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 18:05, Dan Xu <dan...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Hi Roger, >> >> My macro is a little different from yours, which compares with -1 instead of >> NULL. I also see CHECK_EXCEPTION macro. Thanks for adding them, which are >> useful when I cannot decide the pending exception state by just using return >> values. >> >> As for the style, actually I prefer the (!pointer) to (pointer == NULL) >> because it is more concise and also make me avoid the typo like (pointer = >> NULL), which I cannot find from the compilation. Thanks! There's always "yoda conditions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_conditions, (NULL == pointer), but that's not likely to make anyone (besides me) happy. Mike > > Not that it matters, but my preference is to == NULL. > > -Chris. > >> >> -Dan >> >> >> On 01/10/2014 08:40 AM, roger riggs wrote: >>> Hi Dan, >>> >>> Just pushed are macros in jni_util.h to do the same function as your new >>> macros. >>> Please update to use the common macros instead of introducing new ones. >>> >>> Style wise, I would avoid mixing binary operators (!) with pointers. >>> it is clearer to compare with NULL. (The CHECK_NULL macro will do the >>> check and return). >>> >>> (Not a Reviewer) >>> >>> Thanks, Roger >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/10/2014 1:31 AM, Dan Xu wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Please review the fix for JNI pending exception issues reported in >>>> jdk-8029007. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dxu/8029007/webrev.00/ >>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029007 >>>> >>>> -Dan >>> >> >
