Thanks for the reviews, David and Alan!
Rachel
On 2/18/2016 2:48 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 17/02/2016 21:21, Rachel Protacio wrote:
Hello, everyone,
We are moving forward with "JNI_VERSION_9". If it later turns out
that it should be "9_0", we will file a separate bug, but the plain 9
is most likely. There is currently a compatibility request in the
approval process.
Here is the updated code, which builds properly and still prints the
correct version from my own private test.
hotspot repo webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/JNI_hotspot.01/
jdk repo webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/JNI_jdk.01/
This looks good to me.
Iris - I assume you'll add a section to JEP 223 for this, it seems
like the right place to capture this.
-Alan
