Hi Magnus, Thanks very much for looking at this. On 2/19/14 3:55 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2014-02-18 05:22, Pete Brunet wrote: >> Please review this change: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8032443/webrev.00/ >> >> for this bug: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032443 >> >> Some resource compiler defines are need so the JAB DLLs Properties sheet >> will have the proper information. This change fixes the names that are >> displayed. > > Pete, > > Even though I don't know how these RC flags are interpreted, I notice > that virtually all other libraries that has a JDK_FNAME and > JDK_INTERNAL_NAME also has a JDK_FTYPE=0x2L. From http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa381058%28v=vs.85%29.aspx The FILETYPE 0x02 is VFT_DLL File contains a dynamic-link library (DLL).
It's defined in winver.h. > > (In fact, generalizing the pattern > > RC_FLAGS := $(RC_FLAGS) \ > -D "JDK_FNAME=FOO.dll" \ > -D "JDK_INTERNAL_NAME=FOO" \ > -D "JDK_FTYPE=0x2L", > > that appear all over the place is something that has been on our > agenda, unfortunately for far too long without happening). > > It seems that there need to be a good reason for these libraries to > not match this pattern. In my case the 0x02 is defined in the RC file, but I'll change the patch to match what you describe above. > > /Magnus
