[Pharo-dev] Some more effort to make Slang and VMMaker work on Pharo [for review]

David T. Lewis lewis at mail.msen.com
Wed May 15 08:01:14 EDT 2019


Guille,

This is excellent work. Thank you also for your careful explanations.

Dave

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:33:38AM +0200, Guillermo Polito wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
> 
> > El 15 may 2019, a las 3:20, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> escribi??:
> > 
> > Hi Guille,
> > 
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:30 AM Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito at gmail.com <mailto:guillermopolito at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > 
> >  - I had to review the AST-to-AST transformation, checking the output, comparing it to what squeak does and so on...
> > 
> > Can you show a little of th differences in output between Squeak compiler derived sources and RB parser derived sources?  I'm not going to demand changes or fixes or that they be exactly the same.  But I am curious to know what kind of changes there are.
> 
> From what I have now, I can see three main kind of differences (I actually compared with source code I generated myself from squeak and the existing sources in the git repo).
> I did not work on them because the VM seemed to work, so I left them for later:
> 
> 1) some comments are placed in different places in the output source code. This is entirely cosmetic, but it brings unnecessary noise to C source diffs.
> 
> 2) labels in the gnu???ed code are numbered differently. I did not spot any ???bug??? in that yet, I did not dig enough into the gnuification to see why the difference, and I???m not entirely sure that this difference is caused by that either :)???
> Anyhow, this is mostly annoying because it also brings lots of noise to diffs.
> 
> 3) some for loops inline the condition while they probably shouldn't. For example:
> 
> 0 to: (self numSlotsOf: array1) - 1 do: [ ??? ]
> 
> gets in my output translated to 
> 
> for (i = 0; i < (numSlotsOf(array1)); i += 1) { ...
> 
> while in the version generated from squeak
> 
> for (i = 0, iLimiT = ((numSlotsOf(array1)) - 1); i <= iLimiT; i += 1) { ???
> 
> This seems the most ???dangerous" difference I have so far specially if the limit condition has some side effect.
> We will probably agree in that this third point should be fixed ^^.
> 
> >  
> >  - I???ve written several unit tests to ensure that future migrations are easier to do
> >  - I???ve introduced several compatibility classes/methods related to PackageInfo, Time and so on???
> > 
> > This is great1  Thank you.  Perhaps we can move some of the source generation tests into the core.  It would be good for there to be tests that apply to the Squeak compiler side too.  I never took the time to run tests (I look at the generated source every time I make a change Slang), and writing a really good set of tests always seemed like a lot of work.  But I might be tempted to add to the ones you've written. 
> 
> Maybe in the next weeks I can try to massage the tests to make them less dependent on the source (wether squeak's or pharo???s) AST.
> The thing is that Pharo???s AST is closer to the source code, while Squeak???s has already some pre-cooked code transformations (like #ifNil: & co), and my tests assume a specific AST structure to traverse the tree and compare???
> 
> Cheers,
> Guille



More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list