On the 0x23F day of Apache Harmony Eugene Ostrovsky wrote: > I'll try to make test to investigate RI behavior.
thank you thank you thank you > On 13 Dec 2006 16:34:46 +0600, Egor Pasko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > -- Egor Pasko
