Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of mloenko@gmail.com designates
 209.85.132.247 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=SBHPgfKMtRhRW+zhGmROmL87Llq6QGXMauZI0bVcEbvWqJgUbP84vKG0GTU/hr0leXMx5PTavMW914zbqTEFI7BHn4WRM0yGywb8jc9uVK/eyQC+ic2wHxmqq9BbHpp3nVyONlb4tVvJ8HoLv+7IzsSOHNPoy5kOnlrFYjOuOgw=
Message-ID: <906dd82e0704012004t3c828cc7xb667a3259e78c099@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:04:22 +0700
From: "Mikhail Loenko" <mloenko@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: verification of unreachable code
In-Reply-To: <0vqk5wvg3l8.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <c30d70960704010800t1c56d5a0i829b9673d48ddc30@mail.gmail.com>
	 <0vqk5wvg3l8.fsf@gmail.com>

02 Apr 2007 01:57:39 +0400, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
> On the 0x2AB day of Apache Harmony Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> > Hello, Pavel, community,
> >
> > Could you here help me to understand the following issue? Consider the
> > following example:
> > ;
> > ; test method
> > .method public test([Ljava/lang/String;)I
> >    .limit stack 3
> >    .limit locals 2
> >
> >
> >    sipush 555
> >    iconst_1 ; push int 1
> >    iconst_2 ; push int 2
> >    if_icmplt Next
> > Next:
> >    sipush 555
> >    if_icmpne Fail
> >    ; pass
> >    sipush 104
> >    ireturn
> >
> >  Fail:
> >    sipush 105
> >    ireturn // <<<<<< look here
> >
> >
> >    return // <<<<<< look here
> > .end method
> >
> > In VM validation test suite we have a big number of tests like this
> > which have several different return instructions one method. JVM spec
> > says about this: "Each return instruction must match its method's
> > return type." Strangely, Sun's verifier allows this code to pass
> > verification, probably due to the fact that invalid "return" statement
> > is unreachable.
> >
> > Do you think we should be compatible with Sun on this issue?
>
> I think, skipping analysis of unreachable code pieces would make
> verification easier and faster not sacrificing JVM security, real apps
> and such. JIT does not touch unreachable code too. So, let's decide if
> real TCK/compat issues appear and forget unreachable code until then.

+1

Thanks,
Mikhail


>
> --
> Egor Pasko
>
>