Hi! Thanks for a very informative answer!
> > if CGLIB was generating invalid bytecode then I would expect to see > the verify error when you didn't use a profiler - so far I've only seen > this when profilers are involved... Well, the idea was that only when it came "last" to the code, transformations it yielded could end up wrong. Thus you would never observe an error with this as the sole tool. Also, one of the tools could be more robust than the other, so that it consistently handled being last, while the other didn't tackle that. Just musings.. I think that CGLib should fix that "unusualness" of itself (apparently the number of explicit pops it sticks in before the multiple return points it generates?!), adhering to Postel's law: Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others. At least, it could have some switch that could produce conservative code (default), or drop this for the last bit of performance. And obviously, it might well be that it really is the other tools that are in error - but that isn't very helpful. Endre. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
