[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Assumption in building MethodCallGraph

To: CHEN FU <chenfu@paul.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: Assumption in building MethodCallGraph
From: Ondrej LHOTAK <olhotak@sable.mcgill.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 16:21:52 -0400
Cc: soot-list@sable.mcgill.ca
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10305211329420.29512-100000@paul.rutgers.edu>; from chenfu@paul.rutgers.edu on Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:00:23PM -0400
References: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10305211329420.29512-100000@paul.rutgers.edu>
Sender: owner-soot-list@sable.mcgill.ca
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

In the development version of Soot, which we are preparing to release on
June 8th, we've replaced the InvokeGraph and MethodCallGraph with a new
unified CallGraph, so we no longer have these kinds of inconsistencies 
between the two graphs.

> Should I write it here or put it in bug report somewhere?

We tend to prefer the mailing list, but we do also look at bugs
submitted in the web-based bug tracker.

Ondrej

References:
- Assumption in building MethodCallGraph
  - From: CHEN FU <chenfu@paul.rutgers.edu>

Prev by Date: How to deal with implicit call in Spark?
Next by Date: Re: How to deal with implicit call in Spark?
Previous by thread: Assumption in building MethodCallGraph
Next by thread: Building a CallGraph
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread