The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed. Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved. Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.
The logic looks good. Testing looks good. Two comments on the code itself:
1. There is an unconditional call to "fflush(stdout)" that needs to be qualified by gtk_versionDebug (or simply moved to right after the printf in the for loop, since performance isn't a concern in this case).
2. Minor nit: There should be a space after the "for" and before the "(" in:
for(i = 0; use_chain[i] && !found; i++) {
+1 pending the fixes above (no need for a new webrev if those are the only changes).
Okay, David. I will create a new webrev after you push JDK-8163496.
24-11-2016
Semyon,
In general I like what I see here. But.... as part of JDK-8163496, that file is going away, and at least some of the functionality is relocated into a new launcher.c
Kevin and I have said that JDK-8163496 is likely to go in the first week in December (I have vacation next week). I think it would be quicker if you rework your patch to go over the top of JDK-8163496, and push after that is committed.
[~ssadetsky] This bug was filed as a follow-up so as not to hold up getting the JEP done for FX. As you say, JDK-8157002 might be a good idea anyway to cover the case when swt.jar is on classpath, but loaded after glass is loaded.
22-11-2016
I see now. For some reasons JEP-283 doesn't implement native version detection using RTLD_NOLOAD for JFX like it does for JDK. Why it was not implemented as part of the JEP?
That should be fixed of cause.
Probably JDK-8157002 is not needed at all. It's my fault.
Or JDK-8157002 covers the scenario when swt.jar is on the classpath, but before it is loaded by the ClassLoader its native libs cannot be detected? I kept in mind this scenario when I fixed it.
22-11-2016
No, this isn't resolved yet, which is one reason that JDK-8157002 is needed.
22-11-2016
Kevin,
Hasn't this already resolved in JEP-283?
22-11-2016
If we can find a general solution for this, then it sill supersede JDK-8157002. Otherwise, we will at least need to fix that bug.