Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8244728: jextract generates separate nested class for struct and union typedefs #159

Closed

Conversation

@sundararajana
Copy link
Member

@sundararajana sundararajana commented May 11, 2020

  • adding a subclass for struct/union typedefs rather than separate classes
  • piggybacking fix for MemoryLayout::offset->MemoryLayout::bitOffset change

Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

  • JDK-8244728: jextract generates separate nested class for struct and union typedefs

Reviewers

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/panama-foreign pull/159/head:pull/159
$ git checkout pull/159

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented May 11, 2020

👋 Welcome back sundar! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into foreign-jextract will be added to the body of your pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr label May 11, 2020
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented May 11, 2020

Webrevs

Copy link
Collaborator

@mcimadamore mcimadamore left a comment

Let's see how it goes. Note that this change relies on the fact that superclass static members are accessible via subtypes e.g.

Sub.superMethod();

This idiom is generally considered bad and there are places in the language (e.g. method references) where this is actually met with a compile-time error (e.g. Sub::superMethod is not a valid method reference).

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented May 11, 2020

@sundararajana This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks, type /integrate in a new comment to proceed. After integration, the commit message will be:

8244728: jextract generates separate nested class for struct and union typedefs

Reviewed-by: mcimadamore, jvernee
  • If you would like to add a summary, use the /summary command.
  • To credit additional contributors, use the /contributor command.
  • To add additional solved issues, use the /solves command.

Since the source branch of this PR was last updated there have been 2 commits pushed to the foreign-jextract branch:

  • 89674f5: Automatic merge of foreign-abi into foreign-jextract
  • 5deb924: 8244720: Check MethodType and FunctionDescritpor used when linking

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid automatic rebasing, please merge foreign-jextract into your branch, and then specify the current head hash when integrating, like this: /integrate 89674f571b7c102735a2243fe2e83bc0e5be401a.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the foreign-jextract branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label May 11, 2020
test/jdk/tools/jextract/RepeatedDeclsTest.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@sundararajana
Copy link
Member Author

@sundararajana sundararajana commented May 11, 2020

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this May 11, 2020
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated and removed ready labels May 11, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented May 11, 2020

@sundararajana The following commits have been pushed to foreign-jextract since your change was applied:

  • 89674f5: Automatic merge of foreign-abi into foreign-jextract
  • 5deb924: 8244720: Check MethodType and FunctionDescritpor used when linking

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 6779e45.

@openjdk openjdk bot removed the rfr label May 11, 2020
@sundararajana sundararajana deleted the sundararajana:JDK-8244728 branch May 12, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.