Thanks for the reviews, David and Alan!
Rachel
On 2/18/2016 2:48 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 17/02/2016 21:21, Rachel Protacio wrote:
Hello, everyone,
We are moving forward with "JNI_VERSION_9". If it later turns out
that it should be "9_0", we will file a separate bug,
builds properly and still prints the
correct version from my own private test.
hotspot repo webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/JNI_hotspot.01/
jdk repo webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/JNI_jdk.01/
Thank you,
Rachel
On 1/27/2016 6:02 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
Hello!
Thanks for the review, Dan. We'll see how the 9 v. 9_0 discussion plays out.
Rachel
On 1/28/2016 1:37 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 1/27/16 4:02 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
Hello!
Small but important change for review: updating the JNI_VERSION and
in so doing, changing the format
Hello!
Small but important change for review: updating the JNI_VERSION and in
so doing, changing the format from JNI_VERSION_1_x to JNI_VERSION_x_y
(see code/bug for details).
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145098
hotspot repo webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/JNI
