Re: is baf really first?

[Navindra Umanee <navindra@cs.mcgill.ca>]

Patrick LAM <plam@sable.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Baf is conceptually first, but we don't have a bytecode-to-Baf path, while
> we do have a bytecode-to-Coffi and a Coffi-to-Jimple path.  This is what
> we use.  So we say that we produce Baf, but we don't really do any such
> thing.

Aha.  Then is something like this meaningful:

soot -p jb no-splitting -b A

I would have thought so, but I get a runtime error.

Thanks,
-N.