Hi all, I was wanting to continue on deploying the ExceptionJniWrapper and the first on the list was this one C++ file. It is used by various Strace tests and I thought I'd stop at just this one to make it easier for reviewing.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8224079/webrev.00/ Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224079 The biggest thing to note is that the error messages change a bit, originally if the native code noticed a problem it would return either 1 or 2, providing a message in Java land: a return of 1 would provide a message containing (OutOfMemoryError or StackOverflow) a return of 2 would provide a generic message such as Unexpected exception... Now 1 would give just a generic internal error but it would be with a message such as: FATAL ERROR in native method: JNI method CallIntMethod : internal error from StackTraceController.cpp : 48 at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionNative(Native Method) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionJava(strace001.java:343) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionNative(Native Method) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionJava(strace001.java:343) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionNative(Native Method) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionJava(strace001.java:343) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionNative(Native Method) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionJava(strace001.java:343) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionNative(Native Method) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionJava(strace001.java:343) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionNative(Native Method) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionJava(strace001.java:343) at nsk.monitoring.stress.thread.RunningThread.recursionNative(Native Method) .... and you would guess it is either an OOM or a stack overflow. And 2 actually now gives you which method failed. So it's a win for the 2 case, for the 1 there is an extra step that, for me, seemed relatively straight forward. I can change the code slightly for the 1 case to make the error message more specific and closer to the original but I was not sure it was worth it.... What do you all think? Thanks for your help, Jc
