[abc-users] Re: Strange effect in Baf to Jasmin conversion

Hi all.

After some discussion with Patrick it seems that indeed there exists
an implicit condition that identity statements have to be the first
statements in a Jimple (and Baf) body. (I remember this having come up
before but I could never quite explain why.)

So there's two things we can do in abc, either check this condition or
enforce it. I personally think that enforcing would be nicer and
indeed when looking at this method it seems that the person who
implemented the method had something like this in mind:

abc.soot.util.Restructure.getThisLocal(SootMethod)

(the code that would do the actual restructuring is commented out)

What's your opinion on this?

Eric

On 17/04/2008, Patrick Lam <plam_at_cs.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Eric Bodden wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed explanation Patrick. After reading the
> > relevant portion of the specification (see below), I wonder whether
> > not actually the local variable packer should ensure that local
> > variable 0 is never written to and if that would not be the "more
> > correct" fix. Of course one could also enforce that identity
> > statements always come first in Jimple (and Baf) but that would add
> > yet another constraint on the developer.
>
>
> I don't like that as much as enforcing the Jimple/Baf conditions,
> because it means that the local variable packer needs to know whether or
> not the method is an instance method or a static method. The Jimple/Baf
> condition is something that really ought to be checked, and it just
> makes sense anyway: identity statements should come first (or at the
> head of exception-catching blocks).
>
> pat
>
>

-- 
Eric Bodden
Sable Research Group
McGill University, Montréal, Canada