Skip to content

Conversation

@google-labs-jules
Copy link
Contributor

Implemented proper stack handling when skipping un-analyzable methods. The analyzer now pops the object reference for instance methods and pushes a return value (TOP) if applicable. This prevents EmptyStackException and stack corruption in subsequent instructions. Verified with a reproduction test case and existing tests.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 14452846379298328848 started by @mellon85

When skipping a method call that cannot be analyzed, the analyzer must correctly update the stack state to prevent corruption. Previously, it only popped the method arguments.

This change:
1. Pops the object reference (receiver) from the stack if the method call is not static (`!INVOKESTATIC`).
2. Pushes a dummy `TOP` value onto the stack if the method has a non-void return type.

This ensures that subsequent instructions (like `ISTORE`) find the stack in the expected state.
@google-labs-jules
Copy link
Contributor Author

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.


For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

@mellon85 mellon85 marked this pull request as ready for review January 11, 2026 17:06
@mellon85 mellon85 merged commit 3937835 into master Jan 11, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants