harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][verifier] rebuilding stackmaptable attribute without loading the classes
Date Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:35:36 GMT
Hi Asaf,

2007/11/7, Asaf Yaffe <asaf_yaffe@yahoo.com>:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> The existing StackMap attribute (before instrumentation) can help only for the code that
was part of the method *before* is was instrumented. It cannot help with code *added* by instrumentation.

I did not quite understand this. Do you mean information about the
classes references to which are added by instrumentation, or something
else? Could you please provide an example?

Thanks,
Mikhail






Therefore I see two options here:
>
> 1. Find a way for the instrumentor to annotate the the added code with enough data so
that the verifier can use this information without the need to load classes
>
> 2. Delay the entire StackMap computation process to the point where JNI is available
(i.e., when VM_Start JVMTI event fires) and use RedefineClasses to instrument the (bootstrap)
classes already loaded.
>
> The main issue I see with Option 2 is that RedefineClasses is not a mature feature in
most JVM out there (some cannot redefine certain bootstrapping classes at all), and relying
on this feature will hurt the robustness of our tools.
>
> Any thoughts about option 1? Maybe other suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Asaf
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>
> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 11:40:09 AM
> Subject: [drlvm][verifier] rebuilding stackmaptable attribute without loading the classes
>
>
> 2007/11/6, Asaf Yaffe <asaf_yaffe@yahoo.com>:
> > 2. Class Load issues (as described in my previous post): are there
>  any options for running the verifier when classes cannot be loaded as
>  necessary? Please open a separate mail thread for this (prefixed with
>  [drlvm][verifier]).
>
>
> If we have a point where e.g. two types are comming like class A and
>  class B
> and the differrent successor instruction expect to see there two other
>  classes
> like class C and class D, then for the stackmap we should place such a
>  class
> X so that A and B are assignsable to X and X is assignable to C and D.
>
> If all classes might be loaded (like in case of javac who usually
> generates stackmap table attribute) than it's an easy task.
>
> If nethier of A, B, C, and D might be loaded then the task becomes a
> bit challenging :)
>
> What comes to my mind is if we have code and stackmap of the original
> class (before instrumentation), we could extract some info from there.
>
> For example if original class implies that A is assignable to B, then
> we could choose X=B as a solution for the above
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Mime
View raw message