123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261 |
- /*******************************************************************************
- * Copyright (c) 2006 IBM Corporation and others.
- * All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying materials
- * are made available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License v 2.0
- * which accompanies this distribution, and is available at
- * https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.txt
- *
- * Contributors:
- * Andy Clement - initial implementation
- *******************************************************************************/
- package org.aspectj.systemtest.ajc152;
-
- import java.net.URL;
-
- import org.aspectj.testing.XMLBasedAjcTestCase;
-
- import junit.framework.Test;
-
- /**
- * Work items, phase #1: lock()/unlock() x expose new joinpoints x parse new pcds x fix tjp string x preventing double unlock()
- * messages/markers in structure model x error messages appropriate for attempting to use around advice on synchronization join
- * points x making the use of lock/unlock conditional on an -Xjoinpoints:synchronization x activating the -Xjoinpoints options from
- * LTW configurations rather than through batch/AJDT x ensure the lock/unlock joinpoints only appear when
- * -Xjoinpoints:synchronization specified TAG: Completion of PHASE1
- *
- *
- * Work items, phase #2: transformation
- *
- * Design: transform all synchronized methods: public synchronized void m() { ... } => public void m() { synchronized (this) { ... }
- * }
- *
- * x transforming synchronized methods x matching execution(synchronized * *(..)) for transformed code x warning message for
- * execution() hitting a synchronized method x ensure verifier runs over generated code (done by just executing the code as part of
- * the test spec) - Ant task support for -Xjoinpoints TAG: Completion of PHASE2
- *
- *
- * TAG: Finished
- *
- * Future work items: - optimize matching for transformed methods since we *know* the type we are locking on - supporting type
- * pattern in lock() unlock() - this is not entirely trivial as kinded pointcuts do not usually have any residue - weaving messages
- * include 'unusual' strings for the join points, not the same as revealed by thisJoinPoint.getSignature() in code - handler is
- * probably similar - documentation - lazy translation of synchronized methods, rather than eager - applying execution(* *(..))
- * correctly to transformed methods (i.e. inside lock/unlock) - use knowledge of type containing synchronized methods to optimize
- * matching of (un)lock() - not always needing residue - line number table is incorrect for transformed code (lock joinpoint has no
- * line number)
- *
- * Notes: IllegalMonitorStateException Thrown to indicate that a thread has attempted to wait on an object's monitor or to notify
- * other threads waiting on an object's monitor without owning the specified monitor.
- *
- * around advice won't work on SUN VMs (may be a bug that it does work on other VMs) since the monitor instructions are extracted to
- * a separate method for proceed() calls and yet the VM seems to want them paired inside a single method.
- *
- * Really we only need to restrict the use of around advice on synchronization join points if the advice uses proceed() - but
- * policing that is a little tough because (DOH) the AdviceAttribute field 'proceedCallSignatures' is never filled in (which records
- * how many proceeds occur in the advice) - see where it isnt filled in at AdviceDeclaration.resolveStatements() in the loop that
- * goes over the proceedCalls list.
- *
- *
- * Problems: - Can't run it on a 1.2.1 runtime - just not practical
- *
- *
- * Method transformation, example:
- *
- * public synchronized void m(); Code: Stack=2, Locals=1, Args_size=1 0: getstatic #2; //Field
- * java/lang/System.err:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 3: ldc #3; //String hello 5: invokevirtual #4; //Method
- * java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V 8: getstatic #2; //Field java/lang/System.err:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 11: ldc #5;
- * //String world 13: invokevirtual #4; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V 16: return LineNumberTable: line
- * 4: 0 line 5: 8 line 6: 16
- *
- * public void m2(); Code: Stack=2, Locals=3, Args_size=1 0: aload_0 1: dup 2: astore_1 3: monitorenter 4: getstatic #2; //Field
- * java/lang/System.err:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 7: ldc #3; //String hello 9: invokevirtual #4; //Method
- * java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V 12: getstatic #2; //Field java/lang/System.err:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 15: ldc
- * #5; //String world 17: invokevirtual #4; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V 20: aload_1 21: monitorexit
- * 22: goto 30 25: astore_2 26: aload_1 27: monitorexit 28: aload_2 29: athrow 30: return Exception table: from to target type 4 22
- * 25 any 25 28 25 any
- *
- * Factors affecting transformation: - LDC in Java5 supports referring to a class literal, e.g. Foo.class whereas before Java5, it
- * did not. This means if generating the synchronized() block for a static method from a preJava5 class then we have to generate a
- * lot of crap to build the class object for locking and unlocking. The object is also stored in a local field of the type (if we
- * follow the pattern of JDT/JAVAC)
- */
-
- public class SynchronizationTests extends XMLBasedAjcTestCase {
-
- // testing the new join points for monitorenter/monitorexit
- public void testTheBasics_1() {
- runTest("basic");
- }
-
- public void testTheBasics_2() {
- runTest("basic - within");
- }
-
- public void testTheBasics_3() {
- runTest("basic - within plus args");
- }
-
- public void testTheBasics_4() {
- runTest("basic - within plus this");
- } // this null in static context
-
- public void testTheBasics_5() {
- runTest("basic - within plus target");
- } // target null in static context?
-
- // testing parsing of the new PCDs lock/unlock
- public void testParsing_1() {
- runTest("parsing - lock");
- }
-
- public void testParsing_2() {
- runTest("parsing - unlock");
- }
-
- public void testParsing_errors_1() {
- runTest("parsing - error - lock");
- }
-
- public void testParsing_errors_2() {
- runTest("parsing - error - unlock");
- }
-
- // testing parsing and matching with the new PCDs
- public void testParsingAndMatching_1() {
- runTest("parsing and matching - lock and static context");
- }
-
- public void testParsingAndMatching_2() {
- runTest("parsing and matching - unlock and static context");
- }
-
- public void testParsingAndMatching_3() {
- runTest("parsing and matching - lock and non-static context");
- }
-
- public void testParsingAndMatching_4() {
- runTest("parsing and matching - unlock and non-static context");
- }
-
- public void testParsingAndMatching_5() {
- runTest("parsing and matching - lock and non-static context");
- }
-
- public void testParsingAndMatching_6() {
- runTest("parsing and matching - unlock and non-static context");
- }
-
- // using the new PCDs in a LTW environment
- public void testUsingWithLTW_MissingFlag_1() {
- runTest("using lock with LTW - missing flag");
- }
-
- public void testUsingWithLTW_MissingFlag_2() {
- runTest("using unlock with LTW - missing flag");
- }
-
- public void testUsingWithLTW_1() {
- runTest("using lock with LTW");
- }
-
- public void testUsingWithLTW_2() {
- runTest("using unlock with LTW");
- }
-
- // multiple PCDs
- public void testCombiningPCDs_1() {
- runTest("combining pcds - lock and this");
- }
-
- public void testCombiningPCDs_2() {
- runTest("combining pcds - unlock and this");
- }
-
- // useful examples
- public void testUseful_1() {
- runTest("a useful program");
- } // just uses within/args - matching the (un)lock jps
-
- public void testUseful_2() {
- runTest("a useful program - with lock");
- } // uses lock/args
-
- // all the methods of thisJoinPoint
- public void testThisJoinPoint_1() {
- runTest("thisjoinpoint - monitor entry");
- }
-
- public void testThisJoinPoint_2() {
- runTest("thisjoinpoint - monitor exit");
- }
-
- public void testDoubleMessagesOnUnlock() {
- // AsmManager.setReporting("c:/foo.txt",true,true,true,true);
- runTest("prevent double unlock weaving messages and model contents");
- // checkModel1();
- }
-
- // targetting 1.2 runtime - signature creation code in LazyClassGen.initializeTjp may not work
-
- // different advice kinds
- public void testBeforeAdvice_1() {
- runTest("before advice - lock");
- }
-
- public void testBeforeAdvice_2() {
- runTest("before advice - unlock");
- }
-
- public void testAfterAdvice_1() {
- runTest("after advice - lock");
- }
-
- public void testAfterAdvice_2() {
- runTest("after advice - unlock");
- }
-
- public void testAroundAdvice_1() {
- runTest("around advice - lock");
- }
-
- public void testAroundAdvice_2() {
- runTest("around advice - unlock");
- }
-
- public void testLockingTJP() {
- runTest("obtaining locked object through getArgs");
- }
-
- // binary weaving?
-
- // nested locking/unlocking
-
- // --- helpers
-
- // Half finished - could check there is only one relationship for unlock() rather than two - but
- // that seems to be the case anyway (peculiar...)
- // private void checkModel1() {
- // // Verifies only one unlock relationship, not two
- // IProgramElement unlockNode =
- // AsmManager.getDefault().getHierarchy().findElementForLabel(AsmManager.getDefault().getHierarchy().getRoot(),
- // IProgramElement.Kind.CODE,"unlock(void java.lang.Object.<unlock>(java.lang.Object))");
- // assertTrue("Couldn't find the unlock node",unlockNode!=null);
- // List l = AsmManager.getDefault().getRelationshipMap().get(unlockNode);
- // assertTrue("should be one entry :"+l,l!=null && l.size()==1);
- // IRelationship ir = (IRelationship)l.get(0);
- // System.err.println(ir);
- // List targs = ir.getTargets();
- // System.err.println(targs.size());
- // System.err.println(targs.get(0));
- // }
-
- // ---
- public static Test suite() {
- return XMLBasedAjcTestCase.loadSuite(SynchronizationTests.class);
- }
-
- protected URL getSpecFile() {
- return getClassResource("synchronization.xml");
- }
-
- }
|