Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of olegsivokon@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CBB0F63B.3F227%aharui@adobe.com>
References: <4F8BA67A.6080900@leichtgewicht.at>
	<CBB0F63B.3F227%aharui@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:40:48 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAJQBtgkoLRauJtGY8jHV9hzd=9U68qg6Bzu6oSJHgQXqQ5tg=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RT] MXMLC tests & future was: MXMLC now in trunk
From: Left Right <olegsivokon@gmail.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba1efd4ad7440e04bdc6f018

--90e6ba1efd4ad7440e04bdc6f018
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
>
> swfxprinter.java is in the donation and converts ABC code to text.
> Something like it could be used to do analysis.
>
> I believe Martin meant something like a tool that mechanically proves that
the generated bytecode is not erroneous. For example, if you have a
conditional branch you want to check that after conditional branch joins
back the execution routine all attempts to read / write from / to registers
address the same (or same kind of) values. There are of course plenty of
checks. Some (like this one) the compiler must do - it's a basic sanity
check, but some more complex, the compiler doesn't do (for example, it is
possible to analyze whether you are trying to read from a register
containing null pointer) etc. These checks are usually very expensive in
terms of performance, but I don't see why / how SWF execution must be
involved, it's actually better if it's not involved, because some problems
aren't possible to solve by a increasing the number of tests - they will
tend to be infinite or just too many.

Best.

Oleg

--90e6ba1efd4ad7440e04bdc6f018--