Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6. #667

marchof · 2018-03-29T16:55:16Z

Steps to reproduce

JaCoCo version: 0.8.1
Operating system: any
Tool integration: any

Instrument a class with version 1.5 or below.

Expected behaviour

No stackmap frames are inserted.

Actual behaviour

When inserting probes for conditional jumps frames are actually inserted. By definition they are ignored by the java runtime but may cause problems with ASM (large methods) or other tools.

This issue was reported on our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/jacoco/O84HGz6AWq4

Godin

@marchof wow, didn't thought that this will be that simple as replacement of a single literal true 👏

While now we don't insert frames, ASM does 😆 - remember https://gitlab.ow2.org/asm/asm/issues/317800 ? Thus formally speaking the issue as it is stated in description is not fully resolved 😉 however AIOBE from which all this started is gone.

Shall we stay with ASM 6.0 and apply workaround to really get rid of unwanted frames? Or update to ASM 6.1.1? Or rephrase description and entry in changelog with focus on AIOBE? Or something else? WDYT?

Godin · 2018-03-29T18:05:39Z

org.jacoco.core.test/src/org/jacoco/core/internal/instr/InstrSupportTest.java

+
+	@Test
+	public void needFrames_should_return_true_for_1_9() {
+		assertTrue(InstrSupport.needsFrames(Opcodes.V9));


By analogy with #629 (comment) I think that compact form of single test is more appropriate here. And BTW BytecodeVersion.V10 is missing 😉

Added Java 10 (luckily ASM lets us write versions > 9).

As discussed before: I personally prefer to have separate tests to see separate results for separate cases. But if you prefer I can combine them.

I personally prefer to have separate tests to see separate results for separate cases.

I totally agree with this in general, however think that here just two cases and not ten - stackmap frames were introduced in 1.6 and required since then:

@Test public void needFrames_should_return_false_for_versions_less_than_1_6() { ... } @Test public void needFrames_should_return_true_for_versions_greater_than_or_equal_to_1_6() { ... }

this makes clear accent on a functional aspect rather than on technical, which IMO should be prefereable in tests for understandability and hence maintainability.

Added Java 10

Strange - I don't see it.

(luckily ASM lets us write versions > 9).

As a side joke: yes it should - see question https://gitlab.ow2.org/asm/asm/merge_requests/92#note_22288 and answer https://gitlab.ow2.org/asm/asm/merge_requests/92#note_22291 , however this is/was not always possible until fix of corresponding bug in ASM 6.1 - https://gitlab.ow2.org/asm/asm/issues/317807 😉
And in any case we can always patch it up after creation.

Godin · 2018-03-29T18:22:35Z

org.jacoco.core.test/src/org/jacoco/core/test/validation/ClassFileVersionsTest.java

+	 * <pre>
+	 * public class Sample {
+	 * 	public Foo(boolean b){
+	 * 	if(b){


Strange formatting. By analogy with

jacoco/org.jacoco.core.test/src/org/jacoco/core/internal/analysis/filter/EnumEmptyConstructorFilterTest.java

Lines 50 to 57 in ac702e7

* <code><pre>

* enum E {

* ;

* private E() {

* ...

* }

* }

* </pre></code>

I guess that usage of <code><pre> will help.

Fixed. Also Foo should read Sample.

Godin · 2018-03-29T18:35:13Z

org.jacoco.core.test/src/org/jacoco/core/test/validation/ClassFileVersionsTest.java

 	}

-	private byte[] createClass(int version) {
+	/**
+	 * Created a class of the following format. This class requires a frame to


What about replacing Created by Creates, and rephrasing to be inserted since created class already will have it in case of frames = true, e.g. something like

Creates a class that requires a frame before the return statement. Also for this class instrumentation should insert another frame.

?

Sure, fixed.

Godin · 2018-03-29T19:46:08Z

org.jacoco.doc/docroot/doc/changes.html

@@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ <h1>Change History</h1>

 <h2>Snapshot Build @qualified.bundle.version@ (@build.date@)</h2>

+<h3>Fixed Bugs</h3>
+<ul>
+  <li>Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version &lt; 1.6


I have feeling that this might actually be a regression introduced in version 0.6.5 - see 8f81097#diff-c192e78bf00ddbf0e1659d9b0b30f4c3R63 So maybe confirm and rephrase?

I think you're right about the regression. The old FrameTracker was not used at all for class files < 1.6: 8f81097#diff-604aa08a18997c858a24a3cab3c74a63L98

Something like this?

Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6. This is a regression which was introduced with release 0.6.5.

The fix itself is not a regression 😉 so I'd like to propose

Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6,
this fixes regression which was introduced in version 0.6.5

marchof · 2018-03-30T06:36:53Z

@Godin I see your point. Maybe for the next release we have this fix and the upgrade to 6.1.1 in a separate PR. Then the outcome is exactly what both change log entries claim (no frames & new ASM version). Even when strictly speaking they are related I think nobody will understand if we try to explain how they are related.

Godin

Maybe for the next release we have this fix and the upgrade to 6.1.1 in a separate PR. Then the outcome is exactly what both change log entries claim (no frames & new ASM version). Even when strictly speaking they are related I think nobody will understand if we try to explain how they are related.

"nobody"... let's say that I egoistically was mainly thinking about targeting ourselves 😆 But you right, fine like that.

So just few minor comments to address and will be perfect 👍

Godin · 2018-03-30T09:30:02Z

org.jacoco.core.test/src/org/jacoco/core/internal/instr/InstrSupportTest.java

+
+	@Test
+	public void needFrames_should_return_true_for_1_9() {
+		assertTrue(InstrSupport.needsFrames(Opcodes.V9));


I personally prefer to have separate tests to see separate results for separate cases.

I totally agree with this in general, however think that here just two cases and not ten - stackmap frames were introduced in 1.6 and required since then:

@Test public void needFrames_should_return_false_for_versions_less_than_1_6() { ... } @Test public void needFrames_should_return_true_for_versions_greater_than_or_equal_to_1_6() { ... }

this makes clear accent on a functional aspect rather than on technical, which IMO should be prefereable in tests for understandability and hence maintainability.

Added Java 10

Strange - I don't see it.

(luckily ASM lets us write versions > 9).

As a side joke: yes it should - see question https://gitlab.ow2.org/asm/asm/merge_requests/92#note_22288 and answer https://gitlab.ow2.org/asm/asm/merge_requests/92#note_22291 , however this is/was not always possible until fix of corresponding bug in ASM 6.1 - https://gitlab.ow2.org/asm/asm/issues/317807 😉
And in any case we can always patch it up after creation.

Godin · 2018-03-30T09:41:42Z

org.jacoco.doc/docroot/doc/changes.html

@@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ <h1>Change History</h1>

 <h2>Snapshot Build @qualified.bundle.version@ (@build.date@)</h2>

+<h3>Fixed Bugs</h3>
+<ul>
+  <li>Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version &lt; 1.6


The fix itself is not a regression 😉 so I'd like to propose

Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6,
this fixes regression which was introduced in version 0.6.5

For certain probes additional frames needs to be inserted, but only from class file version 1.6 on.

marchof · 2018-03-31T08:58:42Z

@Godin I tried to address all issues. Can you please check again?

marchof requested a review from Godin March 29, 2018 16:59

marchof added type: bug 🐛 Something isn't working component: core labels Mar 29, 2018

marchof added this to the 0.8.2 milestone Mar 29, 2018

Godin requested changes Mar 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

Godin assigned marchof Mar 29, 2018

marchof force-pushed the issue-667 branch 2 times, most recently from c2e39bb to 80564b3 Compare March 30, 2018 06:25

Godin requested changes Mar 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

marchof force-pushed the issue-667 branch from 80564b3 to 5dacbf7 Compare March 31, 2018 08:44

Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6.

b438d53

For certain probes additional frames needs to be inserted, but only from class file version 1.6 on.

marchof force-pushed the issue-667 branch from 5dacbf7 to b438d53 Compare March 31, 2018 08:55

Godin approved these changes Apr 2, 2018

View reviewed changes

Godin merged commit 65ad735 into master Apr 2, 2018

Godin deleted the issue-667 branch April 2, 2018 20:07

jacoco locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2018

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6. #667

Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6. #667

marchof commented Mar 29, 2018

Godin left a comment •

edited

Godin Mar 29, 2018

marchof Mar 30, 2018 •

edited

Godin Mar 30, 2018 •

edited

Godin Mar 29, 2018

marchof Mar 30, 2018

Godin Mar 29, 2018

marchof Mar 30, 2018

Godin Mar 29, 2018 •

edited

marchof Mar 30, 2018

Godin Mar 30, 2018

marchof commented Mar 30, 2018

Godin left a comment

Godin Mar 30, 2018 •

edited

Godin Mar 30, 2018

marchof commented Mar 31, 2018

	* <code><pre>
	* enum E {
	* ;
	* private E() {
	* ...
	* }
	* }
	* </pre></code>

Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6. #667

Don't insert stackmap frames into class files with version < 1.6. #667

Conversation

marchof commented Mar 29, 2018

Steps to reproduce

Expected behaviour

Actual behaviour

Godin left a comment • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marchof Mar 30, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Godin Mar 30, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Godin Mar 29, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marchof commented Mar 30, 2018

Godin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Godin Mar 30, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marchof commented Mar 31, 2018

Godin left a comment •

edited

marchof Mar 30, 2018 •

edited

Godin Mar 30, 2018 •

edited

Godin Mar 29, 2018 •

edited

Godin Mar 30, 2018 •

edited