Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [11] RFR for JDK-8202476: ImageLib is broken in 32 bit Windows

2018-05-04 Thread Alexey Ivanov
Thank you! -- Alexey On 04/05/2018 18:53, Phil Race wrote: Yes, your confirmation on the testing was all that was needed. -phil. On 5/4/2018 10:45 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote: Hi Phil, Just to confirm: do you approve the change? Thank you, Alexey On 02/05/2018 19:24, Alexey Ivanov wrote: Hi

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [11] RFR for JDK-8202476: ImageLib is broken in 32 bit Windows

2018-05-04 Thread Phil Race
Yes, your confirmation on the testing was all that was needed. -phil. On 5/4/2018 10:45 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote: Hi Phil, Just to confirm: do you approve the change? Thank you, Alexey On 02/05/2018 19:24, Alexey Ivanov wrote: Hi Phil, Thank you for your review. On 02/05/2018 17:28, Phil

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [11] RFR for JDK-8202476: ImageLib is broken in 32 bit Windows

2018-05-04 Thread Alexey Ivanov
Hi Phil, Just to confirm: do you approve the change? Thank you, Alexey On 02/05/2018 19:24, Alexey Ivanov wrote: Hi Phil, Thank you for your review. On 02/05/2018 17:28, Phil Race wrote: So ... the original change that removed the mapfiles broke the 32 bit build because of inconsistency

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [11] RFR for JDK-8202476: ImageLib is broken in 32 bit Windows

2018-05-02 Thread Alexey Ivanov
Hi Phil, Thank you for your review. On 02/05/2018 17:28, Phil Race wrote: So ... the original change that removed the mapfiles broke the 32 bit build because of inconsistency between declarations + definitions of some functions. It did not affect 64 bit build because JNICALL is a no-op

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [11] RFR for JDK-8202476: ImageLib is broken in 32 bit Windows

2018-05-02 Thread Phil Race
So ... the original change that removed the mapfiles broke the 32 bit build because of inconsistency between declarations + definitions of some functions. It did not affect 64 bit build because JNICALL is a no-op there. The next change (8201226) added JNICALL to make it consistent, but was not