Hello, Alan. Thank you for the review.
> This looks okay to me. One suggestion is to use #endif /* __cplusplus */ so > that it's consistent with the other usages (also makes it a bit easier when > there are nested ifdefs). Updated the fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchelko/9/8035640/webrev.01/ > As regards logistics then jdk9/dev might be the more suitable forest to push > this to. I suggest this because it looks to me that jdk9/client is pulling > down changes from jdk9/dev very regularly (which is good). On the other hand > there doesn't appear to be regular integrations from jdk9/client to jdk9/dev > yet. I see changes in jdk9/client from mid-December that has still not been > pushed to jdk9/dev. It's just a suggestion to ensure that the changes get to > both forests in timely manner. No problem. I think we could easily wait until the next integration while dependent fixes are being reviewed. I'll push this into dev forest. With best regards. Petr. On 24.02.2014, at 16:10, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 24/02/2014 09:02, Petr Pchelko wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Please review the fix for the issue: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035640 >> The fix is available at: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchelko/9/8035640/webrev.00/ >> >> In AWT code we have quite a lot of C++ sources, but JNU_CHECK_EXCEPTION >> macros could not be used there, because the JNI syntax is different in C++. >> If approved I'll integrate this fix into the client forest, because we need >> this in client to fix parfait issues. >> >> Thank you, >> With best regards. Petr. > This looks okay to me. One suggestion is to use #endif /* __cplusplus */ so > that it's consistent with the other usages (also makes it a bit easier when > there are nested ifdefs). > > As regards logistics then jdk9/dev might be the more suitable forest to push > this to. I suggest this because it looks to me that jdk9/client is pulling > down changes from jdk9/dev very regularly (which is good). On the other hand > there doesn't appear to be regular integrations from jdk9/client to jdk9/dev > yet. I see changes in jdk9/client from mid-December that has still not been > pushed to jdk9/dev. It's just a suggestion to ensure that the changes get to > both forests in timely manner. > > -Alan.
