Re: RFR: 8305990: Stripping debug info of ASM 9.5 fails [v13]

2023-05-09 Thread Adam Sotona
On Tue, 9 May 2023 11:59:08 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: >> Adam Sotona has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 16 additional >>

Re: RFR: 8305990: Stripping debug info of ASM 9.5 fails [v13]

2023-05-09 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
On Tue, 9 May 2023 11:11:36 GMT, Adam Sotona wrote: >> Classfile API didn't handle transformations of class files version 50 and >> below correctly. >> >> Proposed fix have two parts: >> 1. Inflation of branch targets does not depend on StackMapTable attribute >> presence for class file

Re: RFR: 8305990: Stripping debug info of ASM 9.5 fails [v13]

2023-05-09 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
On Tue, 9 May 2023 11:11:36 GMT, Adam Sotona wrote: >> Classfile API didn't handle transformations of class files version 50 and >> below correctly. >> >> Proposed fix have two parts: >> 1. Inflation of branch targets does not depend on StackMapTable attribute >> presence for class file

Re: RFR: 8305990: Stripping debug info of ASM 9.5 fails [v13]

2023-05-09 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
On Tue, 9 May 2023 11:11:36 GMT, Adam Sotona wrote: >> Classfile API didn't handle transformations of class files version 50 and >> below correctly. >> >> Proposed fix have two parts: >> 1. Inflation of branch targets does not depend on StackMapTable attribute >> presence for class file

Re: RFR: 8305990: Stripping debug info of ASM 9.5 fails [v13]

2023-05-09 Thread Adam Sotona
> Classfile API didn't handle transformations of class files version 50 and > below correctly. > > Proposed fix have two parts: > 1. Inflation of branch targets does not depend on StackMapTable attribute > presence for class file version 50 and below. Alternative fallback > implementation is