Re: Simple inlining question

[Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>]

Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Of course, these optimizations are only useful if you're converting class
> files into something else besides Java bytecode (that's what my application
> does, so we have at least one example :-)
> 
> So why not create new, explicit Jimple Stmt's that represent these
> implicit operations? Then they could be optimized away using normal
> analysis techniques. If converting back to Java, you'd just ignore them.
> 
> My question then is: how hard would such an idea be to implement? That is,
> how hard is it to add new Jimple statement and/or expression types without
> invalidating all the existing optimizations, etc?

I just realized this is a dumb idea, because then every piece of
code that moves Stmt's around would have to know to move the two
statements together (eg., null check plus INVOKESPECIAL).
Also, Soot already does this via Host tags.. so, nevermind!

-Archie

__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs      *        CTO, Awarix        *      http://www.awarix.com