April 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3947 in pharo: remove #floodFill:

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Closed Comment #1 on issue 3947 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: remove #floodFill: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3947 in 13131

April 3, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3949 in pharo: Coverage for Cog

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Closed Comment #2 on issue 3949 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: Coverage for Cog http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3949 Tx lukas in 12131

April 3, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Let's get rid of Core vs. Full

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Apr 3, 2011, at 9:34 PM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand wrote: > I really agree with you Marcus. It sounds to me that core/dev is a > black and white approach. > > I know there are no resources, but what do you think of starting with > a minimum image and the build over more sophisticated images? > > -Kernel image > -Core image > -Image with really basic browsing/scm tools (OB, Script Manager, > Shout, etc) - or "developer basic" > -developer standard (the current dev) > -developer scientific > -developer web > ... > etc. > > that wouldn't result in more easier integrations? I'm not sure that you want a lot of different setups because it means checking problems due to interactions. So far we cannot maintain 2 so I do not see why more would help. a core + packages + a dsitribution browser to load certified distributions we want a mini-core + a set of maintained pharo packages + a configuration files When we work on them -> new mini core + automatic publication of new packages + new configuration files Right now this process does not work so this is a ***pain*** I spent 2 hours one sunday to fix some stupid problem with shout in OB just because we do not have good tools on top of metacello and because loading packages is slow. Stef

April 3, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Announcement real problems - please read and comment.

by Henrik Sperre Johansen

On 03.04.2011 10:35, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > On Apr 2, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote: > >> On 02.04.2011 09:16, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> Henrik what is your answer to problem 1 >>> >>> Problem 1 >>> - the second announcement was never sent, because the first one broke the second was blocked. >>> >> we should make sure that if an announcement leads to an error, other annoucements on the same emit should pass >>> >>> Because we can get the system down just because one guy can register a bug. >> http://forum.world.st/Another-finalization-concern-error-handling-td2989615… >> >> It's basically the same. > ?? Same basic problem, same solutions apply. I'd rather not repeat the exact same discussion. Just exchange "finalization" with "announcement delivery" when reading the thread. Cheers, Henry

April 3, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Odd FFI problms with Mac vms...

by Dale Henrichs

On Apr 3, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > >> Norbert, >> >> Today I have found that I can get GemTools to work on the mac using Squeak 4.2.4beta1U. >> >> Squeak 4.2.5beta1U fails when an FFI call returns an incorrect value (get a Space is low error, because the size comes back as 1330942246849085449, instead of a reasonable number). >> >> The image is identical and the gci library file is identical in both cases, I've just switched the vm that I'm using. >> >> Squeak 5.7.4.1 gives an 'unsupported calling convention' with the first FFI call into the library. >> >> Cog-VM.r2378 gives a 'Could not coerce arguments' error for the FFI call that returns the unreasonable number in 4.2.5beta1U...the argument to the function is a SmallInteger (343552513) ... at least this error gives me hope that I can figure out what's wrong with this call sooner or later ... >> >> Anyway, the upshot is that Squeak 4.2.4beta1U is the best bet at the moment on the Mac for running GemTools ... >> >> Oh, the image was a PharoCore-1.1.1...Finding _a_ Mac vm, that works gives me an incentive to try getting GemTools running on PharoCore.1.2... >> >> If any of the vm or FFI guys have some insight to these problems I'd appreciate some pointers to what may be going on... > > Here's the FFI call: > > apiGciFetchObjImpl: anOopType > > <apicall: ulong 'GciFetchObjImpl' (OopType64) > > ^self externalCallFailed > > and OopType64 is a subclass of ExternalStructure with the following fields declaration: > > fields > " > (OopType64 defineFields) > " > > ^#(asOop 'ulonglong'). > > and the function declaration from the header file: > > int GciFetchObjImpl(OopType theObject); I thought it might be suspicious that a SmallInteger was being passed in when the argument type should have been OopType, so in the Cog vm, I traced the source of the argument back to the _result_ another FFI call: <apicall: OopType64 'GciNbPerform' (OopType64 char* ulong long) > The result is declared as OopType64 so it looks like the result was not converted to the correct type on return...which ends up with the incorrect argument coming in .. When the Squeak 4.2.5beta1U runs through the same sequence of calls, the result of GciNbPerform gets correctly converted to OopType64, so that seems to be the ulitmate source of the error ... Not sure whether this is a VM issue or an FFI issue, in either case I assume that the bug exists in some C code floating around somewhere.. Dale

April 3, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Odd FFI problms with Mac vms...

by Dale Henrichs

On Apr 3, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > Norbert, > > Today I have found that I can get GemTools to work on the mac using Squeak 4.2.4beta1U. > > Squeak 4.2.5beta1U fails when an FFI call returns an incorrect value (get a Space is low error, because the size comes back as 1330942246849085449, instead of a reasonable number). > > The image is identical and the gci library file is identical in both cases, I've just switched the vm that I'm using. > > Squeak 5.7.4.1 gives an 'unsupported calling convention' with the first FFI call into the library. > > Cog-VM.r2378 gives a 'Could not coerce arguments' error for the FFI call that returns the unreasonable number in 4.2.5beta1U...the argument to the function is a SmallInteger (343552513) ... at least this error gives me hope that I can figure out what's wrong with this call sooner or later ... > > Anyway, the upshot is that Squeak 4.2.4beta1U is the best bet at the moment on the Mac for running GemTools ... > > Oh, the image was a PharoCore-1.1.1...Finding _a_ Mac vm, that works gives me an incentive to try getting GemTools running on PharoCore.1.2... > > If any of the vm or FFI guys have some insight to these problems I'd appreciate some pointers to what may be going on... Here's the FFI call: apiGciFetchObjImpl: anOopType <apicall: ulong 'GciFetchObjImpl' (OopType64) > ^self externalCallFailed and OopType64 is a subclass of ExternalStructure with the following fields declaration: fields " (OopType64 defineFields) " ^#(asOop 'ulonglong'). and the function declaration from the header file: int GciFetchObjImpl(OopType theObject); Dale

April 3, 2011

[Pharo-project] Odd FFI problms with Mac vms...

by Dale Henrichs

Norbert, Today I have found that I can get GemTools to work on the mac using Squeak 4.2.4beta1U. Squeak 4.2.5beta1U fails when an FFI call returns an incorrect value (get a Space is low error, because the size comes back as 1330942246849085449, instead of a reasonable number). The image is identical and the gci library file is identical in both cases, I've just switched the vm that I'm using. Squeak 5.7.4.1 gives an 'unsupported calling convention' with the first FFI call into the library. Cog-VM.r2378 gives a 'Could not coerce arguments' error for the FFI call that returns the unreasonable number in 4.2.5beta1U...the argument to the function is a SmallInteger (343552513) ... at least this error gives me hope that I can figure out what's wrong with this call sooner or later ... Anyway, the upshot is that Squeak 4.2.4beta1U is the best bet at the moment on the Mac for running GemTools ... Oh, the image was a PharoCore-1.1.1...Finding _a_ Mac vm, that works gives me an incentive to try getting GemTools running on PharoCore.1.2... If any of the vm or FFI guys have some insight to these problems I'd appreciate some pointers to what may be going on... Dale On Mar 30, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > > Am 30.03.2011 um 19:02 schrieb Johan Brichau: > >> well... it only works with a VM up to version 4.2.2 >> > well, right! Something I forgot to tell. That is the reason I start it from the command line :) > > Norbert > >> everything beyond that ended up in a strange login error, indeed >> >> On 30 Mar 2011, at 18:19, Dale Henrichs wrote: >> >>> Yes I am suspicious that there are some os library mismatches involved as I get an odd error during the login sequence and I haven't successfully characterized the specific problem... >>> >>> I am glad to hear that some folks are not having trouble ... which only deepens the mystery:) >>> >>> Dale >> >> > >

April 3, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Let's get rid of Core vs. Full

by HernÃ¡n Morales Durand

I really agree with you Marcus. It sounds to me that core/dev is a black and white approach. I know there are no resources, but what do you think of starting with a minimum image and the build over more sophisticated images? -Kernel image -Core image -Image with really basic browsing/scm tools (OB, Script Manager, Shout, etc) - or "developer basic" -developer standard (the current dev) -developer scientific -developer web ... etc. that wouldn't result in more easier integrations? Cheers, 2011/4/3 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > Hi, > > So finally I have to admit that I am defeated: The way we do the Core vs. Full release does not work. > > 1) We don't develop the system using the tools that we tell people to use. > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -> bugs don't get fixed > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -> there is no pressure on improving the tools > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -> we can't use the advanced tools while developing the Core. > > 2) We integrate *far* too late. > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -> merging in the tools of Dev a week before the big release *will* fail, as they are not tested. > > 3) As we use Core for Development of Core, it's not a Core. It contains all needed tools, just simplified versions. > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -> People even expect to be able to shrink it more, which in turn we do not test. > > 4) Refactoring are only applied to the Core, not to the whole code base. Look at the Sound or Morph Examples... > Â Â getting them fixed for the release if they are not touched for a year is nearly impossible. > > 5) Fixing something in the Core is fast. We move *extremely* fast. Getting something fixed for Full can be very difficult. > Â Â e.g. repositories need to be changed (for a temporary fork), build scripts edited.. it's so hard that it is done far too late. > > 6) We can not do a release and be done. Release drag over weeks, making announcments (and publicity) impossible. > > The build server helps a little bitwith some of the problems, but not much... especially as the full build of unstable is mostly > not working. > > So I vote for abandoning Core vs. Dev for 1.3. > > Â Â Â Â Marcus > > > > -- > Marcus Denker Â -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > > > -- HernÃ¡n Morales Information Technology Manager, Institute of Veterinary Genetics. National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET). La Plata (1900), Buenos Aires, Argentina. Telephone: +54 (0221) 421-1799. Internal: 422 Fax: 425-7980 or 421-1799.

April 3, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Let's get rid of Core vs. Full

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Apr 3, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > Hi, > > So finally I have to admit that I am defeated: The way we do the Core vs. Full release does not work. > > 1) We don't develop the system using the tools that we tell people to use. > -> bugs don't get fixed > -> there is no pressure on improving the tools > -> we can't use the advanced tools while developing the Core. Yes > 2) We integrate *far* too late. > -> merging in the tools of Dev a week before the big release *will* fail, as they are not tested. yes but this is not our fault > 3) As we use Core for Development of Core, it's not a Core. It contains all needed tools, just simplified versions. > -> People even expect to be able to shrink it more, which in turn we do not test. > > 4) Refactoring are only applied to the Core, not to the whole code base. Look at the Sound or Morph Examples... > getting them fixed for the release if they are not touched for a year is nearly impossible. > > 5) Fixing something in the Core is fast. We move *extremely* fast. Getting something fixed for Full can be very difficult. > e.g. repositories need to be changed (for a temporary fork), build scripts edited.. it's so hard that it is done far too late. But marcus you should also read the metacello chapter. Did you read it? > 6) We can not do a release and be done. Release drag over weeks, making announcments (and publicity) impossible. > > The build server helps a little bitwith some of the problems, but not much... especially as the full build of unstable is mostly > not working. > > So I vote for abandoning Core vs. Dev for 1.3. Yes but we need good tool. Stef

April 3, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo 1.3 process

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> > - Get rid of the Core/Full image destinction. This does not work. And I will not do a release with having two images again... it never worked, and it will never work. Yes but for that we need a good browser that we can maintain. > Yes, 2 images seems hard to maintain and hard to understand for newcomers. > > May be we can have: > - Metacello configurations tested separately in Pharo-Clients in Hudson (like PetitParser, Seaside, ...) - drop the ones that don't have tests > - drop actual Pharo, rename PharoCore => Pharo. > - GUI tool in Pharo to easy load Metacello configurations (some stuff must be easy to load for newbies, especially help This is the idea. This is why I asked people (mariano in particular) to focus on helping metacello taking off the ground and to focus on metacello distributions. Once this is up and running. we can have Pharo and hudson loads and certifies the distributions. Stef

April 3, 2011