What is the meaning of e system- jvm:infop=25a84f41,a='7.1.0.746',0='9.50.0.80',h=e000f03

Question

what is the meaning of e system- jvm:infop=25a84f41,a='7.1.0.746',0='9.50.0.80',h=e000f03 when i press alt+L+G+L+G on my bb 9220 i have that situation,but when i press alt+L+G+L+G on the other device i come different situation.what i must to do?

Answer 1

deepspace wrote:
i2b converts form int tot byte.
If you don't use this instruction, the int will probably simply be chopped off at 1 byte.
The casting does this:
Narrowing Conversions: when an integer type is cast to another integer type of a smaller n number of bits, all but the n lowest-order bits, will be truncated.
Yes, if instructions that yields integer results, such as iload_<n>*, are not proceeded with an i2b* instruction then the bastore* instruction, for example, would truncate the 32bit word into 8bits. But what option is there anyway? Maybe not proceeding an instruction, such as iload_<n>*, with i2b* will cause the bastore* instruction to forcibly compress a 32bit word into an 8bit byte?
Please, if you would look at the output of the programs, that I discussed earlier in this post, you would notice the results are exactly the same, regardless to if the iload_<n>* instruction is proceeded with i2b* or not; it is analogous to the NOP*, No Operation, instruction used by microprocessors; however, conversely, the i2bmnemonic implies it actually performs a function. This is why I was questioning the pragmatic* reasoning behind it's usage. I just want to understand what is happening!
I have posted this question to 3 different developer sites, including java.sun.com/j2se forums, and HAVE YET to get a DEFINITIVE* answer. All I get is the obvious answer but that is my problem, isn't it OBVIOUS* that 32bits must be truncated to 8bits to fit into a byte? I could understand if i2* transformed the 32bit word in some way but as evidence by the programs I posted earlier this is not the case. The values I passed to thoses methods ranged from -255 to 255, inclusive!!! Should I use values ranging from java.lang.Integer.*MIN_VALUE* to java.lang.Integer.*MAX_VALUE*, inclusive, instead?
h4.
Please read the posting and look at the output and you will understand my conundrum
-----