On the 0x23E day of Apache Harmony George Timoshenko wrote: > Egor, > > thanks for clear scheme. > > In your terms I'd do something like this: > > * firstly - raise event for X: > CompiledMethodLoad(start=X.1.start, > method_size=X.1.size + X.2.size, > addr_loc_map= > [X.1.start -> bcoff1, > X.2.start -> bcoff2]) > * secondly - raise event for Y: > CompiledMethodLoad(start=Y.1.start, > method_size=Y.1.size, > addr_loc_map= > [Y.1.start -> bcoff_Y])
good question! IMHO, code_addr and code_size outlines a region where method code is contained. In that case VM can quickly tell which method the IP (instruction pointer) belongs to. So, I intentionally suggested code_size=(X.1.size + Y.1.size + X.2.size) instead of (X.1.size + X.2.size). BTW, Eugene, do you have some important observations of the RI behaviour for us? > > For example, we have > > some chinks of methods X and Y intermixed like this: > > "X.1,Y.1,X.2". To overcome we may: > > * raise a single event for X: > > CompiledMethodLoad(start=X.1.start, > > method_size=X.1.size + Y.1.size + X.2.size, > > addr_loc_map= > > [X.1.start -> bcoff1, > > Y.1.start -> 0, > > X.2.start -> bcoff2]) > > * raise 2 events for X: > > CompiledMethodLoad(start=X.1.start, > > method_size=X.1.size, > > addr_loc_map= > > [X.1.start -> bcoff1]) > > CompiledMethodLoad(start=X.2.start, > > method_size=X.2.size, > > addr_loc_map= > > [X.2.start -> bcoff2]) > > > > I would highly appreciate if some JVMTI guru steps down from Olymp and > > tells which of two is the best, or at least says what RI does in that > > case (or, maybe, RI does not generate non-contigous blocks?) > > > > I like the second approach (raise 2 events) > > > > > -- Egor Pasko
