Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Avoid creating a stacktrace prior to JDK 1.7
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 02:04:42 +0200
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <j689qr$6l1$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <j64ht6$o64$1@news.albasani.net> <j66puk$h0j$1@dont-email.me> <j66t6a$9ta$1@news.albasani.net> <4424828.699.1317485416810.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prng5> <j67kk4$qf3$1@news.albasani.net> <1058576.2212.1317496868028.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prfh23> <j67rp6$afo$1@news.albasani.net> <j67svg$7om$1@dont-email.me> <j682df$9ve$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net 2q7vOZS947wVLyTTfPyUSJuFbtx1RTLFRqfT91KjvnbrmiBbw7ukOau/ZUbspfyyuV5AvGTR1qcA2h7ZG+94dA==
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 00:04:43 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="d5etEVJHKvamnFpPgqclPoLeyuLyF7MG2jUYI5GbOwgnlqmaoWGJ7T7aubE8Yz5mJzcwhfCpTp1N1Yl8/Gwirhm2QxirbDKkwg6HIXdxjeFtVMT82KpEmGlcp/7x6/vL"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110928 Firefox/7.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.4.1
In-Reply-To: <j682df$9ve$1@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LeOdEvKC1s4VjuhdJd5l9tkQMxI=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:8470

Stanimir Stamenkov schrieb:
> quite wrong!). Virtual machines are allowed to do extensive
> | optimizations when JITing and may entirely remove stack frames,
> | making it impossible to reliably locate the calling class and
> | method.
>
> So it seems stack trace information is not guaranteed to be available to
> user code.  This detail may be given somewhere in the language or VM
> specifications.

Yes, you usually don't get a stack overflow
when you do tail recursion for example. So
a method:

     void p(int a) {

         ...
         p(b);
     }

Is the same as a loop:

     void p(int a) {
        for (;;) {
           ...
           a = b;
        }
     }

The simplest obtimisation a JIT can do is replace
the last call p(b) by a jump, so not pushing a
new return address on the stack and reusing the
already pushed return address.

Etc... Etc...

Bye