April 2015 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Brand new modern Spotter design!

by Tudor Girba

I wonder :) Doru On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Maybe the color is an April 1st joke ? > > > On 03 Apr 2015, at 10:30, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > > Universal :)))) > > > > Doru > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> > wrote: > > On 01/04/15 11:53, Tudor Girba wrote: > > Nah, you have to experience it first hand yourself. It's too cool to > > experience it via a dead picture. > > > > On wednesday we used it in the devnology workshop. > > It just works, no participants had any remarks :) > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo 4 Beta, first impressions

by Esteban Lorenzano

yetâ¦ while I disagree with the idea of having a âwindowsâ theme (or any platform specific theme), I think it would be cool to have an option to flip the control buttonsâ¦ that can work as an extension of current theme, not as a different theme. Problem is âwho does itâ, more than yes or not to have it :) Esteban > On 03 Apr 2015, at 18:09, Hilaire <hilaire(a)drgeo.eu> wrote: > > Le 03/04/2015 16:21, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >> right, we removed W2K already for Pharo3. >> >> Itâs 2015... > > Still Benoit wrote about users. > Do Benoit think about users of a specific Pharo Desktop application? In > that case it can have implication upgrading this application to newer > Pharo, because destabilizing end user is annoying. > > Hilaire > > -- > Dr. Geo - http://drgeo.eu > iStoa - http://istoa.drgeo.eu > > >

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo 4 Beta, first impressions

by Hilaire

Le 03/04/2015 16:21, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : > right, we removed W2K already for Pharo3. > > Itâs 2015... Still Benoit wrote about users. Do Benoit think about users of a specific Pharo Desktop application? In that case it can have implication upgrading this application to newer Pharo, because destabilizing end user is annoying. Hilaire -- Dr. Geo - http://drgeo.eu iStoa - http://istoa.drgeo.eu

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] VM and .sources in separate dirs question

by Max Leske

> On 03 Apr 2015, at 17:55, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com <mailto:maxleske@gmail.com>> wrote: > > that you can keep the VM and .sources in different directories? How do you tell the VM where to locate the sources? > > You donât. Itâs detected automagically! > > Wait, how does it know which .sources file to pick? :) What if there are .sources from multiple versions of Pharo, etc, lying around on the hard drive? > The image decides which sources file it needs. I have all of mine in a single directory with all the different VMs. Works like a charm.

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] VM and .sources in separate dirs question

by Dmitri Zagidulin

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > that you can keep the VM and .sources in different directories? How do > you tell the VM where to locate the sources? > > You donât. Itâs detected automagically! > Wait, how does it know which .sources file to pick? :) What if there are .sources from multiple versions of Pharo, etc, lying around on the hard drive?

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] VM and .sources in separate dirs question

by Max Leske

> On 03 Apr 2015, at 16:16, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> wrote: > > While editing an Updated Pharo by Example chapter, I came across this: > > "The '.sources' file and the VM can be read-only, and can be shared between > different users. All of these files can be placed in the same directory, but it > is also possible to put the Virtual Machine and sources file in separate > directory where everyone has access to them." > > Is this true, yes ;) > that you can keep the VM and .sources in different directories? How do you tell the VM where to locate the sources? You donât. Itâs detected automagically! > I assume it's some sort of commandline parameter? Cheers, Max

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Ways to do 32-bit arithmetics?

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Stefan, the point is that the code uses only 32 bits. The java code ands by 16rffffffff on each update to seed, and even if that's not necessary because seed is declared as int, it does show that we can discard bits above 3/ after each update. Therefore any use of seed in a left shift does not need alteration because high bits will be lost. The only case is in a right shift, where the sign bit will be propagated. So (assuming ^ & defined as bitXor: and bitAnd: ; I'm on my phone, and that >>> is arithmetic shift right) I believe that this will work: seed := ((seed + 16r7ed55d16) + (seed << 12)) & 16rffffffff. seed := ((seed ^ 16rc761c23c) ^ (seed as32BitSignedValue >>> 19)) & 16rffffffff. seed := ((seed + 16r165667b1) + (seed << 5)) & 16rffffffff. seed := ((seed + 16rd3a2646c) ^ (seed << 9)) & 16rffffffff. seed := ((seed + 16rfd7046c5) + (seed << 3)) & 16rffffffff. seed := ((seed ^ 16rb55a4f09) ^ (seed as32BitSignedValue >>> 16)) & 16rffffffff. ^ seed as32BitSignedValue Eliot (phone) On Apr 3, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Stefan Marr <smalltalk(a)stefan-marr.de> wrote: > Hi Eliot: > >> On 03 Apr 2015, at 16:47, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> if seed is Andes with 16rffffffff when it is initialized then the Java code can be used to generate the next value and the sign conversion only applied once to yield the next value. That would eliminate lots of conversions and make the code readable, right? > > Sorry, I donât understand you. > > In the Java code the `0xffffffff` is redundant/superfluous. Itâs there because I ported the code from JavaScript. The important part is that Java has signed 32bit integers. So, it works as expected out of the box. > > The SOM version shows the explicit operations you need if you donât have any knowledge about the underlying integer representation. In most SOM implementations, integers happen to be represented as 64bit values, that overflow into some form of big/large integer representations. > > The sign-related operations are necessary to get the correct shift and overflow semantics. > > I guess I could implement it easily on a 64-bit Spur image, but I havenât looked into that yet. > > Marcusâ comment looks also useful, but it is going to be very slowâ¦ > > Best regards > Stefan > > -- > Stefan Marr > INRIA Lille - Nord Europe > http://stefan-marr.de/research/ > > > >

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Re: Status of Pharo VM for FreeBSD

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 03 Apr 2015, at 17:27, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wacknitz(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > > Am 03.04.15 13:39, schrieb Esteban Lorenzano: >> >>> On 03 Apr 2015, at 13:04, Andreas Wacknitz <A.Wacknitz(a)gmx.de <mailto:A.Wacknitz@gmx.de>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 03.04.15 11:13, schrieb Esteban Lorenzano: >>>> >>>>> On 02 Apr 2015, at 19:20, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com <mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Andreas, >>>>> >>>>> sorry to be late in replying. This has been a busy month (I moved house). >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wacknitz(a)gmx.de <mailto:a.wacknitz@gmx.de>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Eliot, >>>>> >>>>>> Am 11.03.2015 um 23:15 schrieb Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com <mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com>>: >>>>>> >>>>>> HI Andreas, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wacknitz(a)gmx.de <mailto:a.wacknitz@gmx.de>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Clement, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 11.03.2015 um 09:23 schrieb ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com <mailto:bera.clement@gmail.com>>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About the FreeBSD VM, Holger Freyther worked on it so he's the best person to answer. I think some people used it and it was at least partially working. >>>>>> Thatâs my impression. The VMMaker contains some FreeBSD classes but I have the impression that they are not complete (and probably outdated). >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About your NativeBoost bug on openSolaris, need more information: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Can you confirm that you use an intel processor on your openSolaris machine ? I assume that yes but I ask because solaris were typically running on other processors. NativeBoost, as of today, works only with intel processor. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, my Sun Ultra 24 is an Intel based Workstation (Q9300). >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Do you build the Cog VM or Stack VM ? I mean PharoVMBuild or PharoSVMBuild ? I think the PharoSVMBuild does not include NativeBoost by default, that may be your problem. There's a fix somewhere... >>>>>>> >>>>>> PharoVM from "branch 'master' of https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm>" (thus Cog VM). >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to fold back any changes into the svn master repository for Cog. What are the diffs? (If you have time to send me the diffs that would save me a lot of time). >>>>> I donât know whether there is much to harvest from what I did. As far as I remember most of my work was hacking the generator image created by the pharo vm scripts (for my Mac) in order to make >>>>> the resulting C code to compile under openindiana. The basis for Solaris was already there (and as far as I can see it is also in the Squeak VM sources). I only tweaked some definitions and includes. >>>>> I will look at my notes tomorrow and will post if I will find something relevant. >>>>> >>>>> I am curios about the future of the PharoVM. The main development of the VM seem to happen in the SqueakVM (by you). Getting the Spur changes into the PharoVM seem to be a lot of work. >>>>> >>>>> Note that this will happen (or is already happening). Esteban is working on building the Spur version of Pharo, so he is doing this work. But actually it *isn't* that much work. There is basically a trio of new memory management files for each platform, e.g. platforms/unix/vm/sqUnixSpurMemory.c, and a new source tree for the spur vm, spursrc/vm. The system is already set up to build multiple VMs (at least the svn tree is). >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, this is already done. We are building spur VMs and images since awhile now. You can find all the related jobs here: >>>> >>>> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/4.0-VM-Spur/ <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/4.0-VM-Spur/>If I follow this link and what is being used there brings me to the ordinary PharoVm project on github: >>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm> >>> There are three branches: master, develop and spur64. Which one is being used to build PharoVM-spur32? >> >> yes, I still didnât merged with master. >> master still builds a regular cog vm. >> >> Iâm working on spur64 branch now, here: >> >> https://github.com/estebanlm/pharo-vm/tree/spur64 <https://github.com/estebanlm/pharo-vm/tree/spur64> >> >> the spur jobs are built against my repository for the moment. > I see, that wasn't obvious. I knowâ¦ because is till experimental :) > >> >>> >>>> >>>> And as Eliot saysâ¦ is not *much* workâ¦ except when it is :) >>>> In fact, we were planning to release Pharo 4 (next week) with a Spur VM, but we didnât finish all the small things around. So we will release next July (or around) a Pharo 4S (S, for Spur) with âofficialâ spur support. We do not want to stay to much time in older versions. Also, our development process is different >>> This explanation irritates me: Pharo 4 will be released soon with a Spur VM? And then around summer Pharo 4S? Isn't it a contradiction? >> >> no, Pharo 4 will be released *without* spur, then we will release a 4S *with* spur. > Ok, that makes sense. > >> >>> >>>> than squeak, AFAIKâ¦ we drop backward compatibility in a regular basis. Which basically means we will move to spur and we will drop support for older versions. >>> That's OK, but I am still, hmm say confused, because Eliot is changing A LOT (just look at what has been released during the last days), but PharoVM hasn't been >>> changed for some days (I am following the master branch closely). So there is a rapid development in the Cog branch of the SqueakVM. The changes in the PharoVM are much slower (at least as I recognise it). >> >> just because you checked the master repository, not mineâ¦ mine changed yesterday :) >>> >>> I have more questions but I am reluctant to disturb you further as you must be quite busy atm. >> >> ask, I will answer when I can :) >> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Andreas >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wouldnât it be better to move back the changes of the PharoVM into the SqueakVM and have a united development? >>>>> >>>>> Well, I don't think the Pharo community will be willing to move to svn. SOme time I may be able to move to git. But yes, I *would* like to see important fixes merged back into the SqueakVM. I think this is very important. I'm too overloaded to look at the pharovm so I'm dependent on those working on the pharovm in giut to send me changes for integration. >>>> >>>> Right, we are happy with our process and I do not see it fitting with svn. We changed a lot of âorganisationalâ stuff to ensure traceability and âbuildabilityâ (if such word existsâ¦). And we have made a lot of progress in that area using git and github infrastructure at a point most of the time to incorporate a change we just accept a pull request. >>>> To be able to do that: >>>> - we have to be sure what version of each component (vm, plugin, platform source) is part of the commit info. Thatâs why we keep together both platform sources and image sources (using filetree monticello format). That way each commit has everything we need to build the new vm. In factâ¦ I have a script â./newVM <commit>â that does a clone, prepares an image, generates sources and builds the vmâ¦ then I can test if a pull request is valid. But most of the time that is not needed, because: >>>> - for each pull request, we fire a travis job that creates a vm from scratch and then runs all tests we have in Pharo (and we have improved a lot in that area latest years). They are not âvm specific testsâ, but since they tests all the system, if vm does not crashes and tests are run, we can be sure is working (this wouldnât be possible without right traceability). >>>> - we also build the vm using CMake, but not directly, we use CMakeMaker which allow us to define the build in smalltalk. >>>> - finally, we would like to use the other capabilities (for documentation, etc.) we gain for free by using github. Not that we are already using itâ¦ but we would like, in the future. >>>> >>> Is there an up-to-date documentation of the processes? Especially if I want to add more platform support (like openindiana or FreeBSD)? >> >> the process, noâ¦ for now we accept pull requestsâ¦ and we handle issues using the pharo issue tracker. This is not good, I would like to have a centralised issue trackerâ¦ but well, we will talk with Eliot about it soon (I suppose having alll sources in github also could lead us to us the issue tracker of github) >> the build process is explained in the README.md. >> >>> My time is very limited (my day job is quite different from what I do in my spare time + my family and my house also need a lot attention + next to my Smalltalk interets I am also interested in operating systems) so my reaction time is sometimes quite slow :) >>> >>>> Soâ¦ obviously all of this can be achieved without using git and githubâ¦ but there the infrastructure is already done. >>>> >>>> Said that. Even if we actually have a different process, we (Myself, particularly) are trying to reduce the gap between both VMs. And right now this is the status: >>>> - in the VM itself there is almost no change. AFAIR, just two small things: >>>> a) I include setjmp.h somewhere, because compiler was asking for it (We use different versions than Eliot) >>>> b) the macro to read the image is changed, because we needed to change it for allow build an iOS image. This is just one line in the image and the addition of one macro in 4 platform sources (Linux, Win and Mac redirects to old macro, but iOS implements something different) >>>> - In the platforms we have the most important difference, because we deprecated the âMac OSâ branch in favor of âiOSâ, which in fact should be called OSX, because is the Cocoa version. I understand Eliot want to go in that direction soon so we will align in that area too (btw, that branch has growth organically so we'll need to do some reorganisation to clarify it, eventually) >>>> - in the plugins, we try to adopt a different approach than the previous one: instead using particularities of the platform, we want to align sources as much as possible, so we use the posix libraries. Again, thatâs just when is possible (and when we have time). The most important change we produced here is with FilePlugin: we changed it to provide posix-permissions (and soon we will add primitives to retrieve also ownership). To allow that, we changed a lot in the windows version of the plugin, because instead windows functions we use MinGW. We would like to see this changes merged. >>>> >>>> After that, I think there will be some other minor changesâ¦ not many, and most probably we can remove those differences. >>>> >>>> hope this clarify all :) >>> That's a nice explanation at least. >>> But I am still confused. Especially because you didn't mention NativeBoost :) >> >> Nativeboost is just a plugin (and a cpp flag in generated sources to allocate executable memory). > Ok, when I built my PharoVM for openindiana I was using the Linux version. Alas, that one doesn't work and thus Pharo 4 images have problems. I donât knowâ¦ we are working for making NB not a requirement. > >> >> >>> The ffi area also seem to be different and i a flux. >> >> but we are going to align that also (already half way from there) :) >> we want to be as close as possibleâ¦ there is no point on keeping not needed divergences. >> >>> >>> And still: How to integrate more platforms? >> >> depends on the platform. >> regular process would be: >> >> 1) create a /platform directory, for example /platform/freebsd >> but since freebsd is a unix, probably you do not need to do that and you can handle it in same /platform/unix directory >> >> 2) create a PharoSpur32FreeBSDConfig, taking CogFreeBSDConfig and PharoSpur32UnixConfig (already there) as models. > Hm, atm I am trying to build a new vm for openindiana based on what is on the official repository. > Would it be better to switch to your branch? well, I can offer support with my sourcesâ¦ so yes, I would say so :) > >> >> no idea what changes you need to have. >> we could probably get a freebsd slave to add the build to our building process, I donât know :) >> > FreeBSD will be my 2nd choice. First I want a fully working openindiana version. Even if it's a niche os in my eyes it's superior compared to all the others. > But maybe I am biased because I am using it since it forked from OpenSolaris. I became a Solaris fan while working at my former employerâ¦ I donât know openindiana nor freebsdâ¦ but well, matter of choices :) cheers, Esteban > > Cheers, > Andreas >

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Re: Status of Pharo VM for FreeBSD

by Andreas Wacknitz

Am 03.04.15 13:39, schrieb Esteban Lorenzano: > >> On 03 Apr 2015, at 13:04, Andreas Wacknitz <A.Wacknitz(a)gmx.de >> <mailto:A.Wacknitz@gmx.de>> wrote: >> >> >> Am 03.04.15 11:13, schrieb Esteban Lorenzano: >>> >>>> On 02 Apr 2015, at 19:20, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com >>>> <mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Andreas, >>>> >>>> sorry to be late in replying. This has been a busy month (I >>>> moved house). >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Andreas Wacknitz >>>> <a.wacknitz(a)gmx.de <mailto:a.wacknitz@gmx.de>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Eliot, >>>> >>>>> Am 11.03.2015 um 23:15 schrieb Eliot Miranda >>>>> <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com <mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com>>: >>>>> >>>>> HI Andreas, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Andreas Wacknitz >>>>> <a.wacknitz(a)gmx.de <mailto:a.wacknitz@gmx.de>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Clement, >>>>> >>>>>> Am 11.03.2015 um 09:23 schrieb ClÃ©ment Bera >>>>>> <bera.clement(a)gmail.com <mailto:bera.clement@gmail.com>>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> About the FreeBSD VM, Holger Freyther worked on it so >>>>>> he's the best person to answer. I think some people used >>>>>> it and it was at least partially working. >>>>> Thatâs my impression. The VMMaker contains some FreeBSD >>>>> classes but I have the impression that they are not >>>>> complete (and probably outdated). >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> About your NativeBoost bug on openSolaris, need more >>>>>> information: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Can you confirm that you use an intel processor on your >>>>>> openSolaris machine ? I assume that yes but I ask because >>>>>> solaris were typically running on other processors. >>>>>> NativeBoost, as of today, works only with intel processor. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, my Sun Ultra 24 is an Intel based Workstation (Q9300). >>>>> >>>>>> - Do you build the Cog VM or Stack VM ? I mean >>>>>> PharoVMBuild or PharoSVMBuild ? I think the PharoSVMBuild >>>>>> does not include NativeBoost by default, that may be your >>>>>> problem. There's a fix somewhere... >>>>>> >>>>> PharoVM from "branch 'master' of >>>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm" (thus Cog VM). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would like to fold back any changes into the svn master >>>>> repository for Cog. What are the diffs? (If you have time to >>>>> send me the diffs that would save me a lot of time). >>>> I donât know whether there is much to harvest from what I did. >>>> As far as I remember most of my work was hacking the generator >>>> image created by the pharo vm scripts (for my Mac) in order to make >>>> the resulting C code to compile under openindiana. The basis >>>> for Solaris was already there (and as far as I can see it is >>>> also in the Squeak VM sources). I only tweaked some definitions >>>> and includes. >>>> I will look at my notes tomorrow and will post if I will find >>>> something relevant. >>>> >>>> I am curios about the future of the PharoVM. The main >>>> development of the VM seem to happen in the SqueakVM (by you). >>>> Getting the Spur changes into the PharoVM seem to be a lot of work. >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that this will happen (or is already happening). Esteban is >>>> working on building the Spur version of Pharo, so he is doing this >>>> work. But actually it *isn't* that much work. There is basically >>>> a trio of new memory management files for each platform, e.g. >>>> platforms/unix/vm/sqUnixSpurMemory.c, and a new source tree for the >>>> spur vm, spursrc/vm. The system is already set up to build >>>> multiple VMs (at least the svn tree is). >>> >>> >>> Yes, this is already done. We are building spur VMs and images since >>> awhile now. You can find all the related jobs here: >>> >>> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/4.0-VM-Spur/ >> If I follow this link and what is being used there brings me to the >> ordinary PharoVm project on github: >> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm >> There are three branches: master, develop and spur64. Which one is >> being used to build PharoVM-spur32? > > yes, I still didnât merged with master. > master still builds a regular cog vm. > > Iâm working on spur64 branch now, here: > > https://github.com/estebanlm/pharo-vm/tree/spur64 > > the spur jobs are built against my repository for the moment. I see, that wasn't obvious. > >> >>> >>> And as Eliot saysâ¦ is not *much* workâ¦ except when it is :) >>> In fact, we were planning to release Pharo 4 (next week) with a Spur >>> VM, but we didnât finish all the small things around. So we will >>> release next July (or around) a Pharo 4S (S, for Spur) with >>> âofficialâ spur support. We do not want to stay to much time in >>> older versions. Also, our development process is different >> This explanation irritates me: Pharo 4 will be released soon with a >> Spur VM? And then around summer Pharo 4S? Isn't it a contradiction? > > no, Pharo 4 will be released *without* spur, then we will release a 4S > *with* spur. Ok, that makes sense. > >> >>> than squeak, AFAIKâ¦ we drop backward compatibility in a regular >>> basis. Which basically means we will move to spur and we will drop >>> support for older versions. >> That's OK, but I am still, hmm say confused, because Eliot is >> changing A LOT (just look at what has been released during the last >> days), but PharoVM hasn't been >> changed for some days (I am following the master branch closely). So >> there is a rapid development in the Cog branch of the SqueakVM. The >> changes in the PharoVM are much slower (at least as I recognise it). > > just because you checked the master repository, not mineâ¦ mine changed > yesterday :) >> >> I have more questions but I am reluctant to disturb you further as >> you must be quite busy atm. > > ask, I will answer when I can :) > >> >> Best regards >> Andreas >>> >>>> >>>> Wouldnât it be better to move back the changes of the PharoVM >>>> into the SqueakVM and have a united development? >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, I don't think the Pharo community will be willing to move to >>>> svn. SOme time I may be able to move to git. But yes, I *would* >>>> like to see important fixes merged back into the SqueakVM. I think >>>> this is very important. I'm too overloaded to look at the pharovm >>>> so I'm dependent on those working on the pharovm in giut to send me >>>> changes for integration. >>> >>> Right, we are happy with our process and I do not see it fitting >>> with svn. We changed a lot of âorganisationalâ stuff to ensure >>> traceability and âbuildabilityâ (if such word existsâ¦). And we have >>> made a lot of progress in that area using git and github >>> infrastructure at a point most of the time to incorporate a change >>> we just accept a pull request. >>> To be able to do that: >>> - we have to be sure what version of each component (vm, plugin, >>> platform source) is part of the commit info. Thatâs why we keep >>> together both platform sources and image sources (using filetree >>> monticello format). That way each commit has everything we need to >>> build the new vm. In factâ¦ I have a script â./newVM <commit>â that >>> does a clone, prepares an image, generates sources and builds the >>> vmâ¦ then I can test if a pull request is valid. But most of the time >>> that is not needed, because: >>> - for each pull request, we fire a travis job that creates a vm >>> from scratch and then runs all tests we have in Pharo (and we have >>> improved a lot in that area latest years). They are not âvm specific >>> testsâ, but since they tests all the system, if vm does not crashes >>> and tests are run, we can be sure is working (this wouldnât be >>> possible without right traceability). >>> - we also build the vm using CMake, but not directly, we use >>> CMakeMaker which allow us to define the build in smalltalk. >>> - finally, we would like to use the other capabilities (for >>> documentation, etc.) we gain for free by using github. Not that we >>> are already using itâ¦ but we would like, in the future. >>> >> Is there an up-to-date documentation of the processes? Especially if >> I want to add more platform support (like openindiana or FreeBSD)? > > the process, noâ¦ for now we accept pull requestsâ¦ and we handle issues > using the pharo issue tracker. This is not good, I would like to have > a centralised issue trackerâ¦ but well, we will talk with Eliot about > it soon (I suppose having alll sources in github also could lead us to > us the issue tracker of github) > the build process is explained in the README.md. > >> My time is very limited (my day job is quite different from what I do >> in my spare time + my family and my house also need a lot attention + >> next to my Smalltalk interets I am also interested in operating >> systems) so my reaction time is sometimes quite slow :) >> >>> Soâ¦ obviously all of this can be achieved without using git and >>> githubâ¦ but there the infrastructure is already done. >>> >>> Said that. Even if we actually have a different process, we (Myself, >>> particularly) are trying to reduce the gap between both VMs. And >>> right now this is the status: >>> - in the VM itself there is almost no change. AFAIR, just two small >>> things: >>> a) I include setjmp.h somewhere, because compiler was asking for it >>> (We use different versions than Eliot) >>> b) the macro to read the image is changed, because we needed to >>> change it for allow build an iOS image. This is just one line in the >>> image and the addition of one macro in 4 platform sources (Linux, >>> Win and Mac redirects to old macro, but iOS implements something >>> different) >>> - In the platforms we have the most important difference, because we >>> deprecated the âMac OSâ branch in favor of âiOSâ, which in fact >>> should be called OSX, because is the Cocoa version. I understand >>> Eliot want to go in that direction soon so we will align in that >>> area too (btw, that branch has growth organically so we'll need to >>> do some reorganisation to clarify it, eventually) >>> - in the plugins, we try to adopt a different approach than the >>> previous one: instead using particularities of the platform, we want >>> to align sources as much as possible, so we use the posix libraries. >>> Again, thatâs just when is possible (and when we have time). The >>> most important change we produced here is with FilePlugin: we >>> changed it to provide posix-permissions (and soon we will add >>> primitives to retrieve also ownership). To allow that, we changed a >>> lot in the windows version of the plugin, because instead windows >>> functions we use MinGW. We would like to see this changes merged. >>> >>> After that, I think there will be some other minor changesâ¦ not >>> many, and most probably we can remove those differences. >>> >>> hope this clarify all :) >> That's a nice explanation at least. >> But I am still confused. Especially because you didn't mention >> NativeBoost :) > > Nativeboost is just a plugin (and a cpp flag in generated sources to > allocate executable memory). Ok, when I built my PharoVM for openindiana I was using the Linux version. Alas, that one doesn't work and thus Pharo 4 images have problems. > > >> The ffi area also seem to be different and i a flux. > > but we are going to align that also (already half way from there) :) > we want to be as close as possibleâ¦ there is no point on keeping not > needed divergences. > >> >> And still: How to integrate more platforms? > > depends on the platform. > regular process would be: > > 1) create a /platform directory, for example /platform/freebsd > but since freebsd is a unix, probably you do not need to do that and > you can handle it in same /platform/unix directory > > 2) create a PharoSpur32FreeBSDConfig, taking CogFreeBSDConfig and > PharoSpur32UnixConfig (already there) as models. Hm, atm I am trying to build a new vm for openindiana based on what is on the official repository. Would it be better to switch to your branch? > > no idea what changes you need to have. > we could probably get a freebsd slave to add the build to our building > process, I donât know :) > FreeBSD will be my 2nd choice. First I want a fully working openindiana version. Even if it's a niche os in my eyes it's superior compared to all the others. But maybe I am biased because I am using it since it forked from OpenSolaris. I became a Solaris fan while working at my former employer... Cheers, Andreas

April 3, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Re: Status of Pharo VM for FreeBSD

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Andreas, On Apr 3, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Andreas Wacknitz <A.Wacknitz(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 03.04.15 11:13, schrieb Esteban Lorenzano: >> >>> On 02 Apr 2015, at 19:20, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Andreas, >>> >>> sorry to be late in replying. This has been a busy month (I moved house). >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wacknitz(a)gmx.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Eliot, >>>> >>>>> Am 11.03.2015 um 23:15 schrieb Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>> HI Andreas, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wacknitz(a)gmx.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Clement, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 11.03.2015 um 09:23 schrieb ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About the FreeBSD VM, Holger Freyther worked on it so he's the best person to answer. I think some people used it and it was at least partially working. >>>>>> Thatâs my impression. The VMMaker contains some FreeBSD classes but I have the impression that they are not complete (and probably outdated). >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About your NativeBoost bug on openSolaris, need more information: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Can you confirm that you use an intel processor on your openSolaris machine ? I assume that yes but I ask because solaris were typically running on other processors. NativeBoost, as of today, works only with intel processor. >>>>>> Yes, my Sun Ultra 24 is an Intel based Workstation (Q9300). >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Do you build the Cog VM or Stack VM ? I mean PharoVMBuild or PharoSVMBuild ? I think the PharoSVMBuild does not include NativeBoost by default, that may be your problem. There's a fix somewhere... >>>>>> PharoVM from "branch 'master' of https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm" (thus Cog VM). >>>>> >>>>> I would like to fold back any changes into the svn master repository for Cog. What are the diffs? (If you have time to send me the diffs that would save me a lot of time). >>>> I donât know whether there is much to harvest from what I did. As far as I remember most of my work was hacking the generator image created by the pharo vm scripts (for my Mac) in order to make >>>> the resulting C code to compile under openindiana. The basis for Solaris was already there (and as far as I can see it is also in the Squeak VM sources). I only tweaked some definitions and includes. >>>> I will look at my notes tomorrow and will post if I will find something relevant. >>>> >>>> I am curios about the future of the PharoVM. The main development of the VM seem to happen in the SqueakVM (by you). Getting the Spur changes into the PharoVM seem to be a lot of work. >>> >>> Note that this will happen (or is already happening). Esteban is working on building the Spur version of Pharo, so he is doing this work. But actually it *isn't* that much work. There is basically a trio of new memory management files for each platform, e.g. platforms/unix/vm/sqUnixSpurMemory.c, and a new source tree for the spur vm, spursrc/vm. The system is already set up to build multiple VMs (at least the svn tree is). >> >> >> Yes, this is already done. We are building spur VMs and images since awhile now. You can find all the related jobs here: >> >> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/4.0-VM-Spur/ > If I follow this link and what is being used there brings me to the ordinary PharoVm project on github: > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm > There are three branches: master, develop and spur64. Which one is being used to build PharoVM-spur32? > >> >> And as Eliot saysâ¦ is not *much* workâ¦ except when it is :) >> In fact, we were planning to release Pharo 4 (next week) with a Spur VM, but we didnât finish all the small things around. So we will release next July (or around) a Pharo 4S (S, for Spur) with âofficialâ spur support. We do not want to stay to much time in older versions. Also, our development process is different > This explanation irritates me: Pharo 4 will be released soon with a Spur VM? And then around summer Pharo 4S? Isn't it a contradiction? > >> than squeak, AFAIKâ¦ we drop backward compatibility in a regular basis. Which basically means we will move to spur and we will drop support for older versions. > That's OK, but I am still, hmm say confused, because Eliot is changing A LOT (just look at what has been released during the last days), but PharoVM hasn't been > changed for some days (I am following the master branch closely). So there is a rapid development in the Cog branch of the SqueakVM. The changes in the PharoVM are much slower (at least as I recognise it). It may seem like I'm changing a lot, but I am /not/ changing the base and Spur VMs much. I am only fixing bugs I. spur. That's because I'm stabilising the VM for the Squeak 5 release. The changes are in two areas that are as yet unreleased. One area is the JIT for ARM that Tim and I are working on. The other area is Sista, the speculative inliner, that ClÃ©ment and I are working on. > I have more questions but I am reluctant to disturb you further as you must be quite busy atm. > > Best regards > Andreas >> >>> >>> >>>> Wouldnât it be better to move back the changes of the PharoVM into the SqueakVM and have a united development? >>> >>> Well, I don't think the Pharo community will be willing to move to svn. SOme time I may be able to move to git. But yes, I *would* like to see important fixes merged back into the SqueakVM. I think this is very important. I'm too overloaded to look at the pharovm so I'm dependent on those working on the pharovm in giut to send me changes for integration. >> >> Right, we are happy with our process and I do not see it fitting with svn. We changed a lot of âorganisationalâ stuff to ensure traceability and âbuildabilityâ (if such word existsâ¦). And we have made a lot of progress in that area using git and github infrastructure at a point most of the time to incorporate a change we just accept a pull request. >> To be able to do that: >> - we have to be sure what version of each component (vm, plugin, platform source) is part of the commit info. Thatâs why we keep together both platform sources and image sources (using filetree monticello format). That way each commit has everything we need to build the new vm. In factâ¦ I have a script â./newVM <commit>â that does a clone, prepares an image, generates sources and builds the vmâ¦ then I can test if a pull request is valid. But most of the time that is not needed, because: >> - for each pull request, we fire a travis job that creates a vm from scratch and then runs all tests we have in Pharo (and we have improved a lot in that area latest years). They are not âvm specific testsâ, but since they tests all the system, if vm does not crashes and tests are run, we can be sure is working (this wouldnât be possible without right traceability). >> - we also build the vm using CMake, but not directly, we use CMakeMaker which allow us to define the build in smalltalk. >> - finally, we would like to use the other capabilities (for documentation, etc.) we gain for free by using github. Not that we are already using itâ¦ but we would like, in the future. > Is there an up-to-date documentation of the processes? Especially if I want to add more platform support (like openindiana or FreeBSD)? > My time is very limited (my day job is quite different from what I do in my spare time + my family and my house also need a lot attention + next to my Smalltalk interets I am also interested in operating systems) so my reaction time is sometimes quite slow :) > >> Soâ¦ obviously all of this can be achieved without using git and githubâ¦ but there the infrastructure is already done. >> >> Said that. Even if we actually have a different process, we (Myself, particularly) are trying to reduce the gap between both VMs. And right now this is the status: >> - in the VM itself there is almost no change. AFAIR, just two small things: >> a) I include setjmp.h somewhere, because compiler was asking for it (We use different versions than Eliot) >> b) the macro to read the image is changed, because we needed to change it for allow build an iOS image. This is just one line in the image and the addition of one macro in 4 platform sources (Linux, Win and Mac redirects to old macro, but iOS implements something different) >> - In the platforms we have the most important difference, because we deprecated the âMac OSâ branch in favor of âiOSâ, which in fact should be called OSX, because is the Cocoa version. I understand Eliot want to go in that direction soon so we will align in that area too (btw, that branch has growth organically so we'll need to do some reorganisation to clarify it, eventually) >> - in the plugins, we try to adopt a different approach than the previous one: instead using particularities of the platform, we want to align sources as much as possible, so we use the posix libraries. Again, thatâs just when is possible (and when we have time). The most important change we produced here is with FilePlugin: we changed it to provide posix-permissions (and soon we will add primitives to retrieve also ownership). To allow that, we changed a lot in the windows version of the plugin, because instead windows functions we use MinGW. We would like to see this changes merged. >> >> After that, I think there will be some other minor changesâ¦ not many, and most probably we can remove those differences. >> >> hope this clarify all :) > That's a nice explanation at least. > But I am still confused. Especially because you didn't mention NativeBoost :) > The ffi area also seem to be different and i a flux. > > And still: How to integrate more platforms? > > Regards > Andreas >

April 3, 2015