Re: Re: Re: LocalVariableSorter

Thanks, based on your hints I was able to fix the problem!

Best regards
Nikolas

Eugene Kuleshov schrieb:
>   Usually that happen when you are making direct calls to the next
> visitor in chain instead of using super.visit*() calls. But if that is
> not the case, try to reproduce this issue in a small isolated test, so
> we can look at it.
>
>   regards,
>   Eugene
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Nikolas Nehmer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>   
>> Hi Eugene,
>>
>> in fact, I don't need the variable to be in the localVar table. But as
>> mentioned in my first mail, just using the newLocal method provided by the
>> localVarSorter doesn't work. Obviously the Sorter is doing "something" (i.e.
>> it seems to be invoked in the right way )- e.g. shifting the indexPositions
>> of exisitng variables in the table - leaving "space" for the created
>> variable. But if I try to access the new variable with a store operation,
>> the store operation's index in the bytecode changes automatically to a value
>> that is defined in the variable table (in contrast to the new variable that
>> is not defined in the table).
>> ISTORE 1 automatically changes to ISTORE 0 e.g. when looking at bytecode
>> after the instrumentation process using a TraceClassVisitor. Of course this
>> usually ends in a verify error because of typing problems. So basically my
>> problem is not to insert new entries to the table, but to prevent the
>> bytecode to change by some magic. It seems as if the index in the store
>> operation is changing because "something" decided that at this point in time
>> no variable could be accessed at the given index position. Any
>> recommendations to solve that problem?
>>
>> Eugene Kuleshov schrieb:
>>     
>>> Nikolas,
>>>
>>>  If you need your new variable in the local var table debug info,
>>> then you should call visitLocalVariable() method
>>>
>>>  regards,
>>>  Eugene
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Nikolas Nehmer
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a question regarding the LocalVariableSorter. I`m trying to add an
>>>> additional local variable calling the newLocal method. Looking at the
>>>> localVariable entries in the resulting bytecode, one can see that the
>>>> variable indexes are "shifted" according to the added variable - but
>>>> there
>>>> is no additional entry added to the localVariable table. If I'm trying to
>>>> access the added variable at the corresponding index position, the index
>>>> within the store (let's asume it's a store statement that I'm using to
>>>> access the newly defined variable) statement is shifted (by some magic)
>>>> to a
>>>> close value that is present (index 1 --> index 2) in the local variable
>>>> table. Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Nikolas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list.
>>>> To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
>>>> For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
>>>> OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>> --
>> Dipl.-Inf. Nikolas Nehmer,
>> Dept. of Computer Science. University of Kaiserslautern P.O. Box 3049, 67653
>> Kaiserslautern, Germany.
>> room 36/308, phone: +49 (0) 631 - 205 2644, fax: +49 (0) 631 - 205 3299
>> mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>>     


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. Nikolas Nehmer,
Dept. of Computer Science. University of Kaiserslautern 
P.O. Box 3049, 67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany.
room 36/308, phone: +49 (0) 631 - 205 2644, fax: +49 (0) 631 - 205 3299
mail: [email protected]

-- 
You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws