Add RTC_ prefix to (D)CHECKs and related macros.
We must remove dependency on Chromium, i.e. we can't use Chromium's base/logging.h. That means we need to define these macros in WebRTC also when doing Chromium builds. And this causes redefinition. Alternative solutions: * Check if we already have defined e.g. CHECK, and don't define them in that case. This makes us depend on include order in Chromium, which is not acceptable. * Don't allow using the macros in WebRTC headers. Error prone since if someone adds it there by mistake it may compile fine, but later break if a header in added or order is changed in Chromium. That will be confusing and hard to enforce. * Ensure that headers that are included by an embedder don't include our macros. This would require some heavy refactoring to be maintainable and enforcable. * Changes in Chromium for this is obviously not an option. BUG=chromium:468375 NOTRY=true Review URL: https://codereview.webrtc.org/1335923002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#9964}
This commit is contained in:
@ -16,8 +16,8 @@
|
||||
|
||||
// Abort the process if |jni| has a Java exception pending.
|
||||
// TODO(henrika): merge with CHECK_JNI_EXCEPTION() in jni_helpers.h.
|
||||
#define CHECK_EXCEPTION(jni) \
|
||||
CHECK(!jni->ExceptionCheck()) \
|
||||
#define CHECK_EXCEPTION(jni) \
|
||||
RTC_CHECK(!jni->ExceptionCheck()) \
|
||||
<< (jni->ExceptionDescribe(), jni->ExceptionClear(), "")
|
||||
|
||||
namespace webrtc {
|
||||
@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ JNIEnv* GetEnv(JavaVM* jvm);
|
||||
jlong PointerTojlong(void* ptr);
|
||||
|
||||
// JNIEnv-helper methods that wraps the API which uses the JNI interface
|
||||
// pointer (JNIEnv*). It allows us to CHECK success and that no Java exception
|
||||
// is thrown while calling the method.
|
||||
// pointer (JNIEnv*). It allows us to RTC_CHECK success and that no Java
|
||||
// exception is thrown while calling the method.
|
||||
jmethodID GetMethodID(
|
||||
JNIEnv* jni, jclass c, const char* name, const char* signature);
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user