Ok, thanks Andy, I'll raise a defect. I'd be happy to dig a bit deeper if someone were willing to guide me.
Cheers, Craig On 2/9/07, Andy Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can raise a bug for the failure but the -XnoInline is a suitable workaround for now. XnoInline means we do not inline around advice, we generate closure classes instead. Inlined code is faster. Andy. On 09/02/07, Craig Ching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hadn't, no. I just tried that and, indeed, it now works. Looking at the > docs, it's not clear to me that this is what I'm supposed to do. Is it? > What are the implications of doing this? > > Should I be pursuing a defect? Or are you saying that this is correct > behavior? > > Thanks for the help! > > Cheers, > Craig > > > On 2/9/07, Andy Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > Have you tried putting "-XnoInline" as an option in your weaver > > options within aop.xml to see if that helps? > > > > Andy. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > aspectj-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > > _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
_______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
