On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:10:07 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> JNI calls were identified, where we do not check for a pending Exception
> afterwards.
>
> (JDK-8162530 cleaned up up some of these kind of issues some years back, but
> more were found.)
>
> I tested a code change to manually create an E
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:10:07 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> JNI calls were identified, where we do not check for a pending Exception
> afterwards.
>
> (JDK-8162530 cleaned up up some of these kind of issues some years back, but
> more were found.)
>
> I tested a code change to manually create an E
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:10:07 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> JNI calls were identified, where we do not check for a pending Exception
> afterwards.
>
> (JDK-8162530 cleaned up up some of these kind of issues some years back, but
> more were found.)
>
> I tested a code change to manually create an E
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 18:14:48 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Looks fine. It may worth refactoring the code to set an element in an utility
> method.
>
> ```
> jobject obj = JNU_NewObjectByName(env, class_name, signature, value);
> if ((*env)->ExceptionCheck(env)) {
> return;
> }
>
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:10:07 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> JNI calls were identified, where we do not check for a pending Exception
> afterwards.
>
> (JDK-8162530 cleaned up up some of these kind of issues some years back, but
> more were found.)
>
> I tested a code change to manually create an E
