We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Given the following example:
NEW Type DUP INVOKESPECIAL Type.<init>()V INVOKEVOID Type.enableThing()V ASTORE t ALOAD t ARETURN
The tracked instructions will not include the constructor or void call.
Type.<init>()V
Type.enableThing()V
This is not a clear edge-case fix since ASM tosses values of invoke calls that return void. This is done in Frame#executeInvokeInsn(...)
void
Frame#executeInvokeInsn(...)
private void executeInvokeInsn(AbstractInsnNode insn, final String desc, final Interpreter<V> interpreter) { // ... snip if (Type.getReturnType(methodDescriptor) == Type.VOID_TYPE) { interpreter.naryOperation(insn, valueList); } else { push(interpreter.naryOperation(insn, valueList)); } }
There is a test case that asserts the current behavior: TestInstructionTracking
TestInstructionTracking
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Given the following example:
The tracked instructions will not include the constructor or void call.
Type.<init>()V
Type.enableThing()V
This is not a clear edge-case fix since ASM tosses values of invoke calls that return
void
. This is done inFrame#executeInvokeInsn(...)
There is a test case that asserts the current behavior:
TestInstructionTracking
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: