Eric, I think I now understand your problem. When -Xjoinpoints:synchronization is used you get a warning for every synchronized method matched by execution() rather than just those that have actually been transformed due to a matching lock/unlock() pointcut. Fortunately this is an Xlint warning so you can switch it off. Please read the design notes for https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=123759.
Matthew Webster AOSD Project Java Technology Centre, MP146 IBM United Kingdom Limited Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England Telephone: +44 196 2816139 (external) 246139 (internal) "Eric Bodden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/04/2007 16:02 Please respond to [email protected] To [email protected] cc Subject Re: [aspectj-users] advice matching the synchronized method shadow ... will be executed outside the lock rather than inside (compiler limitation) But my question was why the transformation is done at all. In my understanding, execution(synchronized *.*(..)) matches all synchronized methods, i.e. shadows should be woven just inside those methods, as usual for execution-joinpoints. Then, the lock/unlock pointcuts match on sychronized blocks (but not synchronized methods, right?), which is something entirely different. But also for those, I do not see why you would need any transformation. Cheers, Eric On 04/04/07, Matthew Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eric, before () : lock() {} The (current) limitation exists because of the need to change the weave to (reliably) put method execution advice _inside_ the synchronized block but only when that block is the result of a prior transformation! Matthew Webster AOSD Project Java Technology Centre, MP146 IBM United Kingdom Limited Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England Telephone: +44 196 2816139 (external) 246139 (internal) "Eric Bodden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/04/2007 22:49 Please respond to [email protected] To [email protected] cc Subject Re: [aspectj-users] advice matching the synchronized method shadow ... will be executed outside the lock rather than inside (compiler limitation) Thanks, Matthew, for the comment. However, I don't quite understand. Why should it be necessary to do this transformation? Why can't you not just insert the proper advice body call into the body of the synchronized method. (That's what abc does and it never seemed to cause any problems.) It would be great if that could be clarified. Cheers, Eric On 03/04/07, Matthew Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Eric, Please read Bug 123759 "expose join points for synchronized methods/blocks and define new related pointcuts". Essentially to advise a synchronized method we must transform it into a non-synchronized method with a synchronized block. However the existing execution() pointcut matching means that the method execution join point will occur before the lock rather than after (as it should do). Matthew Webster AOSD Project Java Technology Centre, MP146 IBM United Kingdom Limited Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England Telephone: +44 196 2816139 (external) 246139 (internal) "Eric Bodden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 28/03/2007 15:38 Please respond to [email protected] To [email protected] cc Subject [aspectj-users] advice matching the synchronized method shadow ... will be executed outside the lock rather than inside (compiler limitation) Hi all. ajc is giving me this compiler warning: advice matching the synchronized method shadow <some method name here> will be executed outside the lock rather than inside (compiler limitation) What does this mean? When ajc injects code into the body of a synchronized method, is this code then not automatically guarded by the lock that is assigned when this method is entered? Could somebody clarify the semantics of that message for me? Cheers, Eric -- Eric Bodden Sable Research Group McGill University, Montréal, Canada _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users -- Eric Bodden Sable Research Group McGill University, Montréal, Canada _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users -- Eric Bodden Sable Research Group McGill University, Montréal, Canada _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
_______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
