The symbolic reference and the instruction that uses it, is still there at run-time. It is resolved during execution of the instruction, but it is NOT replaced. If executed again, the symbol search happens again. This second behavior might only happen if dexopt was not run on the app (I'm not sure).

If that is the case, then it wouldn't violate the patent either. The patent, as I understand it, claims the invention where the instruction is replaced (at the time it is executed) by an equivalent instruction with the symbolic reference resolved. If the instruction is not replaced, then there is no violation.

I readily admit that I did not read all the claims in detail. Those that I read specified that the instruction with the symbolic reference was to be replaced by an instruction with the resolved numeric reference.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]