On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 01:29:26 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 11:20:05 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix the code that is actually warning
>
> I'll take a look… hopefully next week.
> @aivanov-jdk Is the final change
On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 01:29:26 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 11:20:05 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix the code that is actually warning
>
> I'll take a look… hopefully next week.
@aivanov-jdk Is the final change ok
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 17:09:12 GMT, Julian Waters 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
> 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
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 17:09:12 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 02:38:13 GMT, Julian Waters 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
> 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
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 16:53:01 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Hmm, I lean towards jint as I feel it conveys the fact that it is a Java
>> parameter clearer, intuitively to me it makes sense that a Java integer type
>> would still work in a C++ for loop in native code
>
> You're right… it gives a
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 14:30:49 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> To minimise the number of changes, we can go for using `jint` in
>> `AwtMenu::GetItem`.
>>
>> What do you thing, @djelinski and @TheShermanTanker?
>
> Hmm, I lean towards jint as I feel it conveys the fact that it is a Java
> parameter
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 14:28:51 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> The declaration and implementation have to match.
>
> To minimise the number of changes, we can go for using `jint` in
> `AwtMenu::GetItem`.
>
> What do you thing, @djelinski and @TheShermanTanker?
Hmm, I lean towards jint as I feel it
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 14:24:44 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> src/java.desktop/windows/native/libawt/windows/awt_Menu.h line 76:
>>
>>> 74: /*for multifont menu */
>>> 75: BOOL IsTopMenu();
>>> 76: virtual AwtMenuItem* GetItem(jobject target, int index);
>>
>> Hi @aivanov-jdk are you
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 00:16:45 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> src/java.desktop/windows/native/libawt/windows/awt_MenuBar.cpp line 148:
>>
>>> 146: }
>>> 147:
>>> 148: AwtMenuItem* AwtMenuBar::GetItem(jobject target, jint index)
>>
>> What is the reason for using `jint` instead of `int`?
>>
>>
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 06:10:05 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Revert wrong Copyright
>> - Copyright
>
> src/java.desktop/windows/native/libawt/windows/awt_Menu.h line 76:
>
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 02:38:13 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 11:20:05 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix the code that is actually warning
>
> I'll take a look… hopefully next week.
Wait a minute, I was right, it was
> 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
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 00:31:28 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 00:31:28 GMT, Julian Waters 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
> 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:51:42 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revert "GetDIBits should take an LPVOID"
>>
>> This reverts commit 7dbe5dea84b1afb2235b66da581bcd3c1da4d6ac.
>
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:37:56 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> src/java.desktop/windows/native/libawt/windows/ShellFolder2.cpp line 1084:
>>
>>> 1082:
>>> 1083: jint *colorBits = nullptr;
>>> 1084: int *maskBits = nullptr;
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> jint
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:24:29 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> src/java.desktop/windows/native/libawt/java2d/windows/GDIRenderer.cpp line
>> 605:
>>
>>> 603: return;
>>> 604: }
>>> 605: jint sx, sy, ex, ey;
>>
>> Again these don't seem to need to be Java types.
>
> I've got the
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:20:09 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revert "GetDIBits should take an LPVOID"
>>
>> This reverts commit 7dbe5dea84b1afb2235b66da581bcd3c1da4d6ac.
>
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:33:17 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revert "GetDIBits should take an LPVOID"
>>
>> This reverts commit 7dbe5dea84b1afb2235b66da581bcd3c1da4d6ac.
>
On Thu, 25 May 2023 01:30:34 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revert "GetDIBits should take an LPVOID"
>>
>> This reverts commit 7dbe5dea84b1afb2235b66da581bcd3c1da4d6ac.
>
>
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:40:23 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:40:23 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:40:23 GMT, Julian Waters 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
> 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:23:25 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:16:28 GMT, Julian Waters 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
> 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:05:15 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> I'm currently running version 13.1, win32 threads
>
> I'll retry again, maybe the warning has changed now
Seems like it doesn't trigger any longer, I'll revert the cast. Thanks for
catching this
-
PR Review Comment:
> 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 13:48:53 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/jaccesswalker/jaccesswalker.cpp line
>> 547:
>>
>>> 545: snprintf( s, sizeof(s),
>>> 546: "ERROR calling GetAccessibleContextInfo; vmID = %lX,
>>> context = %p",
>>> 547:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:03:26 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> gcc will crash with a warning about a mismatched format specifier between
>> signed and unsigned if this isn't done, unfortunately
>
> Which gcc? This code compiles without warnings:
>
> #include
> int main() {
> unsigned long
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:04:48 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> Which gcc? This code compiles without warnings:
>>
>> #include
>> int main() {
>> unsigned long i = 1;
>> long j = 2;
>> printf("%ld %ld %lx %lx %lu %lu\n", i, j, i, j, i, j);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>> # gcc -Wall
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:37:11 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> Julian Waters has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one
>> new
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 03:00:16 GMT, Julian Waters 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
> 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
> 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 23:22:48 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix the code that is actually warning
>
> src/java.desktop/windows/native/libawt/windows/ShellFolder2.cpp line 1089:
>
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:43:02 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the logic here. I would not want to move to using
> Java typedefs in places where the windows APIs specify the types they are
> expecting. If something comes in from a JNI down-call we should convert it to
> the
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:49:24 GMT, Julian Waters 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
On Wed, 24 May 2023 13:56:05 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>
On Wed, 24 May 2023 13:56:05 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>
On Wed, 24 May 2023 13:56:05 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>
On Thu, 25 May 2023 07:22:50 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> All the changes from long were done since there was conversion from or to a
> jint somewhere down the line,
Okay I see that now. It is a messy situation - at some point the incoming
jint's need to be "converted" to a native type.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 13:56:05 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>
On Thu, 25 May 2023 01:34:15 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> I think the JNI type definition change is okay.
>
> However many of the other changes appear to me to not involve Java variables
> and so don't need to be Java types i.e they should be `int` rather than
> `jint` - though as these are
On Wed, 24 May 2023 13:56:05 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>
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
68 matches
Mail list logo
