John Rose wrote:
> Remi's idea (using invokedynamic) makes a good proof of concept, too.
> But because we use getCallerClass to observe a non-forgeable caller
> identity, the @CS mechanism has to be something that works "underneath"
> any visible bytecode pattern, at least in the caller.
Yes. In I
On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:46 AM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> This is really great. I've been using an annotation for caller sensitive
> methods for many year in IKVM as a performance enhancement and I can say that
> my experiences with my simple mechanism are really great.
Hi Jeroen. I'm glad you (a
Remi Forax wrote:
> I've always found that getCallerClass() was done at the wrong side of
> the problem, i.e. asked inside the callee instead of being inserted at
> callsite.
Yes, I agree and in fact in the IKVM implementation a CallerID parameter is
added to each method that has the HasCallerID
..@oracle.com
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 18:59
To: john.r.r...@oracle.com
Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: JEP 176: Mechanical Checking of Caller-Sensitive Methods
Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/176
- Mark
On 03/01/2013 05:59 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
> Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/176
Yes, please. This doesn't solve the whole problem, but it makes it
much more tractable. There is still the risk of application code
getting this wrong by using other methods to find their callers,
core-libs-dev-
> boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of mark.reinh...@oracle.com
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 18:59
> To: john.r.r...@oracle.com
> Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
> Subject: JEP 176: Mechanical Checking of Caller-Sensitive Methods
>
> Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/176
>
> - Mark
Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/176
- Mark
