On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Vladimir Berezniker
> <vmpn_at_hitechman.com> wrote:
> > Patch 01 - Introduce macro
> >
> > [[[
> > JavaHL: Added CPPADDR_NULL_PTR macro to reduce amount of duplicate code
> > checking C++ pointer extracted from the java object
> >
> > [ in subversion/bindings/javahl/native ]
> >
> > * JNIUtil.h
> > (CPPADDR_NULL_PTR): New macro to test for NULL pointer and raise java
> > exception if necessary
> > ]]]
>
> Replying to just this patch. The second patch seems pretty mechanical.
> And we're only looking at minor nits.
>
> (sorry, but the patch doesn't inline into this response, so let's just
> be flexible here...)
>
> Sorry, I cannot figure out how to get gmail to inline attachments, I'll
setup
IMAP client when I have a spare moment to to figure out which one will
work for me.
>
> The macro argument substitutions need to be parenthesized for safety.
> So it would be: (expr) == NULL, and it would be: return (ret_val);
>
will take care of (expr). Same cannot be done for ret_val because it is
valid for the ret_val to be empty when used inside void methods.
>
> Next bit: the indentation in the diff seems to be off. Are there TAB
> characters in there? the JNIUTIL:: and the return lines have different
> indents in the patch that I'm looking at. That is either sloppy SPC
> character indents, or a TAB is present.
>
I managed to sneak a single TAB in there, fixed now.
>
> Lastly, there is an extra space character before the ";" in the return
> statement. That should be eliminated.
>
>
> Fix the above three problems, and I'm +1 for you to commit just patch #1.
>
Will do.
>
> I have not reviewed #2, but the first patch seems reasonable to
> simplify (as done in #2). I also await others to comment on the
> applicability of patch #2.
>
> I do seem to recall that C++ tried to do away with the preprocessor.
> It would be nice to follow that ideal, but looking at this macro... I
> have no idea how to map it into "proper, non-CPP concepts". If you
> know, that would be better.
I am a java guy, with a some C/C++ understanding, afraid I won't be of
much help in this department. Most of the macro is repeat of the existing
SVN_JNI_NULL_PTR_EX with different exception being thrown.
> Otherwise... meh. CPP is just fine with me
> (and screw the C++ academic purity).
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Thank you for the feedback,
Vladimir
Received on 2012-06-01 10:34:43 CEST