On 10 Jan 2014, at 18:05, Dan Xu <dan...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Roger, > > My macro is a little different from yours, which compares with -1 instead of > NULL. I also see CHECK_EXCEPTION macro. Thanks for adding them, which are > useful when I cannot decide the pending exception state by just using return > values. > > As for the style, actually I prefer the (!pointer) to (pointer == NULL) > because it is more concise and also make me avoid the typo like (pointer = > NULL), which I cannot find from the compilation. Thanks!
Not that it matters, but my preference is to == NULL. -Chris. > > -Dan > > > On 01/10/2014 08:40 AM, roger riggs wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> Just pushed are macros in jni_util.h to do the same function as your new >> macros. >> Please update to use the common macros instead of introducing new ones. >> >> Style wise, I would avoid mixing binary operators (!) with pointers. >> it is clearer to compare with NULL. (The CHECK_NULL macro will do the check >> and return). >> >> (Not a Reviewer) >> >> Thanks, Roger >> >> >> >> On 1/10/2014 1:31 AM, Dan Xu wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Please review the fix for JNI pending exception issues reported in >>> jdk-8029007. Thanks! >>> >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dxu/8029007/webrev.00/ >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029007 >>> >>> -Dan >> >
