Hi Dmitry,
I am not sure how using macro will help in this context. As far as I
know, macros must be sparingly used as they are error-prone, obfuscate
the code and hard to debug. Most of best coding practice for c/c++
(inluding Scott Myers Effective C++ ) advocate using macros only if it
is absolutely needed.
-Harsha
On Monday 29 August 2016 02:00 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Harsha,
I'm for macro.
You can define a macro right before a place where you uses it and undef
it when you don't need it anymore.
-Dmitry
On 2016-08-25 11:19, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hello All,
Please find below the revised webrev below.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8161448/webrev.01/
Regards
Harsha
On Wednesday 24 August 2016 11:48 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
On Tuesday 23 August 2016 12:41 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Harsha,
On 22/08/2016 6:30 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hello All,
Please review the below parfait fixes for DiagnosticCommandImpl.c
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161448
webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8161448/webrev.00/
Looks functionally correct, but I wouldn't complain if you wanted to
use a macro to reduce the duplication and verbosity. Even the:
109 if (obj == NULL) {
110 free(dcmd_arg_info_array);
111 return NULL;
can be replaced by an exception-check as that is the only time
JNU_NewObjectByName can return NULL.
I am not sure if using macro here is good practice since it will be
specific to the function and it will encapsulate the local variable
within it. Also, it will reduce code readability. Hence I would like
to leave it as is.
I also noticed an issue that was flagged in some other JNI code lately:
213 if (obj == NULL) {
214 free(dcmd_info_array);
215 JNU_ThrowOutOfMemoryError(env, 0);
216 return NULL;
If obj == NULL then there is already a pending exception and we
should not be throwing OOME.
Sure. This needs to be fixed.
Thanks,
David
Regards
Harsha
Harsha
