August 2014 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Quitting the community

by Torsten Bergmann

Hi Ben, first: I think it is not a secret that we appreciate any work you did so far for Pharo and our community. Still I do not like the mail you have written, because: - It gives a false impression of the community itself and leaves us back once more with questions (especially as most of us were not part of the conflict). - You associate the behavior of one member of the community (be it wrong or right) with the community itself as you now decided to leave and will not continue to move with us forward again. You should really rethink your decision: 1. Life is much, much too short for such hazzles! 2. To give the community and Pharo a chance to move forward. Remember that Pharo is also YOURS. You should also give yourself the chance to keep the investments already done from your side here like Nautilus, Spec and various other contributions. They already made a difference and I'm sure that if you decide to stay you would influence Pharo development even more in the future. 3. See 1. Regarding the case we (as a community) can only judge on things we read - but not on what happened behind the scenes or in direct contact between members. As it looks more like a personal conflict between you and Stef you both have to find a solution or arrangement. If you keep you decision to leave we have to and will respect it. I wished you both would have a beer and settle down on the conflict, especially because there is point 1... As a side note: I personally would keep ValueHolder as it is a well known concept. If we want to be heretic with Smalltalk we could also rename "Object" into "Thing". ;) I think we have a board to decide about different technical ideas (even when it is about naming). If that does not work we should setup a voting system. But we should never let the conflicts get too personal. Did I already mention that life is much too short for such things ...? Thanks T. Â

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] I want to remove zeroconf for 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

by phil＠highoctane.be

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > is different problem. > most probably we will not have zeroconf for centos anytime soon. > but we will have builds for centos compatible vms (downloadable, but not > zercoconf), thatâs for sure :) > > (yeah, I know, I promised that to you like months ago, but Iâve been busy. > I can just say the issue it is finally arriving to the top of the stack :P) > Good, as I was looking at RPM packaging and yum repos. Maybe can we work a bit together on that. Phil > > Esteban > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 12:20, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > > Centos ? > Le 19 aoÃ»t 2014 13:19, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > >> ah, I also will add zeroconf for pharo-minimal :P >> >> On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:37, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:16, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> I donât need them. >> >> >> >> On 19.08.2014, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> right now there zeroconf scripts for pharo 1.2-1.4 that I do not >> think anyone is using it. >> >>> Can I remove them? >> >>> >> >>> cheers, >> >>> Esteban >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Stack size for compiled methods (issue 13854 Crash/hang on array access)

by Craig Latta

Hoi Eliot-- > [great explanation of method/block stack depth] Cool, is this viewable from an in-system tool somewhere (even if only a "documentation" method in a class browser)? thanks, -C -- Craig Latta netjam.org +31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok) + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] I want to remove zeroconf for 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

by Esteban Lorenzano

is different problem. most probably we will not have zeroconf for centos anytime soon. but we will have builds for centos compatible vms (downloadable, but not zercoconf), thatâs for sure :) (yeah, I know, I promised that to you like months ago, but Iâve been busy. I can just say the issue it is finally arriving to the top of the stack :P) Esteban On 19 Aug 2014, at 12:20, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > Centos ? > > Le 19 aoÃ»t 2014 13:19, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > ah, I also will add zeroconf for pharo-minimal :P > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:37, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:16, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I donât need them. > >> > >> On 19.08.2014, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> right now there zeroconf scripts for pharo 1.2-1.4 that I do not think anyone is using it. > >>> Can I remove them? > >>> > >>> cheers, > >>> Esteban > >> > >> > > > > > >

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] I want to remove zeroconf for 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

by phil＠highoctane.be

Centos ? Le 19 aoÃ»t 2014 13:19, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > ah, I also will add zeroconf for pharo-minimal :P > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:37, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:16, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I donât need them. > >> > >> On 19.08.2014, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> right now there zeroconf scripts for pharo 1.2-1.4 that I do not > think anyone is using it. > >>> Can I remove them? > >>> > >>> cheers, > >>> Esteban > >> > >> > > > > > > >

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] I want to remove zeroconf for 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

by Esteban Lorenzano

ah, I also will add zeroconf for pharo-minimal :P On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:37, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > +1 > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:16, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I donât need them. >> >> On 19.08.2014, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> right now there zeroconf scripts for pharo 1.2-1.4 that I do not think anyone is using it. >>> Can I remove them? >>> >>> cheers, >>> Esteban >> >> > >

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] I want to remove zeroconf for 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

by Tudor Girba

+100 On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > +1 > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:16, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I donât need them. > > > > On 19.08.2014, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> right now there zeroconf scripts for pharo 1.2-1.4 that I do not think > anyone is using it. > >> Can I remove them? > >> > >> cheers, > >> Esteban > > > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Stack size for compiled methods (issue 13854 Crash/hang on array access)

by Nicolai Hess

Thank you eliot, 2014-08-19 7:29 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: > Hi Nicolai, > > the stack starts as deep as the method's number of temporaries, ok, > which is the sum of the number of arguments ok, > plus the number of temporary variables that can exist in the stack ok (what does "can exist in the stack" mean? They always do?) > plus one if there are any closed-over temporary variables that need to be > in an indirection vector. Then as execution proceeds the receiver and > arguments are pushed on the stack, and are replaced by intermediate results > by sends it by the create array bytecode. So, for a method with no blocks, the stack is just the number of temporaries plus the number of args for the message send with the maximum number of args? > Any blocks within the method start with the sum of their number of > arguments, their number of copied values (temp values they access > read-only) plus their local temporaries. > But this is not just added to the stack size, right? I have a method with 9 local temporaris and a block in this method with 8 local temporaries and the frameSize is still 16, (with the old compiler/ 56 with the new compiler). So, method and block local temporaries not just sum up? I tried different variations - numberOfMethod temps smaller/equal/greater numberOfBlockTemp - no/some/all method temporaries are accessed in the block closure. But I can not see a pattern :) > > In the method and each block scope stack depth is the hence the sum of the > number of temporaries plus the max execution depth. And the method's depth > is the max of the method and that of any blocks within it. What is the execution depth of a method ? The number of "nested blocks"? > Then if that depth is 17 or greater it gets the LargeFrame flag set which > means the VM allocates a 56 slot context, the compiler raising an error if > the depth is greater than 56. > > HTH > Eliot (phone) > Here are two carefully handcrafted methods :) fooSmall |t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8| t1:=1. t2:=2. t3:=3. t4:=4. t5:=5. t6:=6. t7:=7. t8:= 8. t1:=[:i | |b1 b2 b3 b4 c1 c2 c3 c4 x| b1:=1. b2:=2. b3:=3. b4:=4. c1:=1. c2:=2. c3:=3. c4:=4. x:=1. x+t1 + b1+b2+b3+b4 + c1 + c2 + c3 + c4] value:1. ^ t1 + t2 + t3 + t4 + t5 + t6 + t7 + t8 fooLarge |t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7| t1:=1. t2:=2. t3:=3. t4:=4. t5:=5. t6:=6. t7:=7. t1:=[:i | |b1 b2 b3 b4 c1 c2 c3 c4 x| b1:=1. b2:=2. b3:=3. b4:=4. c1:=1. c2:=2. c3:=3. c4:=4. x:=1. x+t1 +t2 + t3 + t4 + t5+ b1+b2+b3+b4 + c1 + c2 + c3 + c4] value:1. ^ t1 + t2 + t3 + t4 + t5 + t6 + t7 They differ only in the number of tempraries (t1-t8 / t1-t7) and the number of copied values for the block closure (1 / 5). with the old compiler: fooSmall frameSize -> 16 fooLarge frameSize -> 56 the opal compiler computes the opposite sizes fooSmall frameSize -> 56 fooLarge frameSize -> 16 I am confused. > > On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > on what depends the stack size for a compiled method? > > I try to figure out, why the old compiler and the opal compile generate > different > > compiled method headers. > > I think this comes from a wrong stack size computed by opal, but I can > not figure > > out how the stack size is computed. > > > > Old Compiler > > PolygonMorph>>#lineSegmentsDo: > > header -> "primitive: 0 > > numArgs: 1 > > numTemps: 3 > > numLiterals: 23 > > frameSize: 56" > > > > Opal compiler: > > PolygonMorph>>#lineSegmentsDo: > > header -> "primitive: 0 > > numArgs: 1 > > numTemps: 3 > > numLiterals: 23 > > frameSize: 16" > > >

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] I want to remove zeroconf for 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

by Yuriy Tymchuk

+1 On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:16, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I donât need them. > > On 19.08.2014, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> right now there zeroconf scripts for pharo 1.2-1.4 that I do not think anyone is using it. >> Can I remove them? >> >> cheers, >> Esteban > >

Aug. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] I want to remove zeroconf for 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

by Max Leske

I donât need them. On 19.08.2014, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > right now there zeroconf scripts for pharo 1.2-1.4 that I do not think anyone is using it. > Can I remove them? > > cheers, > Esteban

Aug. 19, 2014