On Thu, 25 May 2023 01:34:15 GMT, David Holmes <dhol...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> I think the JNI type definition change is okay. > > However many of the other changes appear to me to not involve Java variables > and so don't need to be Java types i.e they should be `int` rather than > `jint` - though as these are native Windows types there may not actually be > any reason to change them from `long`. This is for the client-libs folk to > decide. All the changes from long were done since there was conversion from or to a jint somewhere down the line, and the compilation would fail if not done otherwise. I also changed them to jint rather than int so there wouldn't be a need to keep the variables in sync with the jni.h declarations, but I guess I'll wait for more reviews to see what to do here ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14125#issuecomment-1562408466
