- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo 7.0] Build #119: 22892 update to iceberg v154 support for win64
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #119 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2221 was integrated: "22892 update to iceberg v154 support for win64" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2221 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22892 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 7.0] Build #118: Correct a typo in ZnDefaultServerDelegate class
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #118 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2216 was integrated: "Correct a typo in ZnDefaultServerDelegate class" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2216 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/patch Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 8.0] Build #10: 2212-welcome-window-should-ignore-nil
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #10 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2214 was integrated: "2212-welcome-window-should-ignore-nil" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2214 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2212 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

Rewrite system of critics
by Cyril Ferlicot Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

Hi, I am investigating a bug in critics. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22250/RBCascadeNextPutAllsRule-refactorin… I found the source of the problem. In Pharo 6 this critic did a rewrite of the method using RBParseTreeRewriter. This one managed the case where the refactored node was contained in a cascade or not. In Pharo 7 the rewrite is done in ReReplaceNodeCritique. But this one uses a becomeForward: to replace an old node by a rewritten node. But this breaks in case the new node cannot just replace the old one, like when it try to introduce a cascade in another cascade. I don't know renraku enough to fix the problem and I was wondering why ReReplaceNodeCritique does the replacement itself when we already have RBParseTreeNode? -- Cyril Ferlicot https://ferlicot.fr

1 0

[Pharo 7.0] Build #117: 22884-Update-iceberg-to-v153
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #117 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2206 was integrated: "22884-Update-iceberg-to-v153" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2206 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22884 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

DebugSession>>activePC:
by Thomas Dupriez Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

Hello, I saw that DebugSession>>activePC: has no senders in pharo. Does someone know the intention behind it? activePC: aContext Â Â Â ^ (self isLatestContext: aContext) Â Â Â Â Â Â ifTrue: [ interruptedContext pc ] Â Â Â Â Â Â ifFalse: [ self previousPC: aContext ] Thomas Dupriez

1 0

[Pharo 8.0] Build #9: SUCCESS
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #9 was: SUCCESS. Could not extract further issue information from commit message: verify suffix is not nil to add it (otherwise add an empty string) Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Max number of method arguments
by Nicolas Cellier Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

After the existing legacy Compiler implementation in Squeak/Pharo, I draw the contour of an Opal Compiler variant for compiling methods/messages with more than 15 arguments. I'am using the single array scheme, but this could be changed easily IMO to 14+excess... Contrarily to what I wrote in the comment, the VM does NOT crash and I can implement methods and send messages like this a1: a1 a2: a2 a3: a3 a4: a4 a5: a5 a6: a6 a7: a7 a8: a8 a9: a9 a10: a10 a11: a11 a12: a12 a13: a13 a14: a14 a15: a15 a16: a16 a17: a17 a18: a18 a19: a19 a20: a20 ^(a1+a2+a3+a4+a5+a6+a7+a8+a9+a10) + (a11+a12+a13+a14+a15+a16+a17+a18+a19+a20) testSend ^(self a1: 1 a2: 2 a3: 3 a4: 4 a5: 5 a6: 6 a7: 7 a8: 8 a9: 9 a10: 10 a11: 11 a12: 12 a13: 13 a14: 14 a15: 15 a16: 16 a17: 17 a18: 18 a19: 19 a20: 20) = (20*21/2) Playground: TestManyArgs new testSend. -> true Find it here: http://www.squeaksource.com/Smallapack/Smallapack-OpalCompiler-nice.1.diff It would be nice to re-integrate these tricks in Pharo8 once stable. Le mer. 9 janv. 2019 Ã 01:46, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > > Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 Ã 23:31, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> a > Ã©crit : > >> >> Hi Nicolas, >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:51 PM Nicolas Cellier < >> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> particularly Clement and Eliot, >>> >>> One of the most annoying limit of bytecode is the number of arguments >>> (<16 in V3), not so much annoying for pure Smalltalk, but certainly so for >>> FFI (FORTRAN 77 lacks structures so existing code base often have functions >>> with many arguments). >>> For scientific Smalltalk, some of those old FORTRAN libraries are still >>> around nowadays (LAPACK is an example). >>> >> >> Agreed. There are VW users out there with autogenerated code that >> requires more than 15 arguments. ClÃ©ment and I already have a design in >> mind, which is much more elegant than using the extra bit below. However, >> it does require that we change the maximum Context stack size, which is one >> reason (the other being lack of time) why we haven't implemented this so >> far. >> >> ]In 2008 my closure design introduced indirection vectors for closed over >> arguments and among the five bytecodes added to implement it was the Create >> Array bytes ode that can do one of two things: >> >> V3PlusClosures: >> 138 10001010 jkkkkkkk Push (Array new: kkkkkkk) (j = 0) >> or Pop kkkkkkk elements into: (Array new: kkkkkkk) (j = 1) >> >> SistaV1: >> 231 11100111 jkkkkkkk Push (Array new: kkkkkkk) (j = 0) >> & Pop kkkkkkk elements into: (Array new: kkkkkkk) (j = 1) >> >> This bytecode is used to create indirection vectors, and to create tuples >> of size <= 8. e.g. { thisContext method symbolic. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 } >> #('89 <52> pushThisContext: >> 90 <81> send: method >> 91 <80> send: symbolic >> 92 <E8 02> pushConstant: 2 >> 94 <E8 03> pushConstant: 3 >> 96 <E8 04> pushConstant: 4 >> 98 <E8 05> pushConstant: 5 >> 100 <E8 06> pushConstant: 6 >> 102 <E8 07> pushConstant: 7 >> 104 <E8 08> pushConstant: 8 >> 106 <E7 88> pop 8 into (Array new: 8) >> 108 <5C> returnTop >> >> We call this version of the bytecode the cons array bytecode. The other >> form, used to create in direction vectors is the greater array bytecode. >> >> (c.f. { thisContext method symbolic. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 } which >> produces much more code but requires only 2 elements of stack depth). >> >> There are also three bytecodes used to access indirection vectors: >> >> V3PlusClosures: >> 140 10001100 kkkkkkkk jjjjjjjj Push Temp At kkkkkkkk In Temp Vector >> At: jjjjjjjj >> 141 10001101 kkkkkkkk jjjjjjjj Store Temp At kkkkkkkk In Temp Vector >> At: jjjjjjjj >> 142 10001110 kkkkkkkk jjjjjjjj Pop and Store Temp At kkkkkkkk In Temp >> Vector At: jjjjjjjj >> SistaV1: >> 251 11111011 kkkkkkkk sjjjjjjj Push Temp At kkkkkkkk In Temp Vector At: >> jjjjjjj, s = 1 implies remote inst var access instead of remote temp vector >> access >> * 252 (3) 11111100 kkkkkkkk sjjjjjjj Store Temp At kkkkkkkk In Temp >> Vector At: jjjjjjj s = 1 implies remote inst var access instead of remote >> temp vector access >> * 253 (3) 11111101 kkkkkkkk sjjjjjjj Pop and Store Temp At kkkkkkkk In >> Temp Vector At: jjjjjjj s = 1 implies remote inst var access instead of >> remote temp vector access >> >> So the insight is that if we pass arguments beyond 14 in an indirection >> vector we can have up to 15 + 127 = 142 arguments without needing any extra >> bits in a CompiledMethod header or range in a bytecode. We simply pop >> arguments beyond the 14th into an indirection vector, using the cons array >> bytecode. Yes, this is slow compared to "native" support, but such methods >> are extremely rare, and supporting them this way means we have less waste >> elsewhere. It will require some sophistication in the Decompiler, but >> otherwise seems quite simple. >> >> With this design, as far as the VM is concerned the maximum argument >> count is still 15. Only the image need bother with how to record the >> argument count for a method that has 15 or more arguments, and indeed a >> method with 15 arguments can still use all 15 arguments without having to >> create an indirection vector. This isolates the effects to the compiler >> (arguments beyond the 14th in methods with more than 15 arguments must be >> accessed using the indirection vector bytecodes above), but otherwise are >> quite localized: indirection vector creation occurs immediately after >> normal argument marshaling and immediately before the send bytecode. >> >> Does this design appeal to you? If it does, then we should discuss when >> and how it should be implemented. One thing would be to make the maximum >> size of a Context, defined at the image level by CompiledCode's LargeFrame >> class variable, but hard coded into the VM, some kind of VM parameter, e.g. >> stored in the image header and read at start-up. It would be quite easy to >> add this. If we did so we should also ensure the stack page size >> calculation allows for a stack page big enough for one or two huge frames. >> Note that the design also means that a large stack is needed only to >> *marshal* arguments, not to activate a method with many arguments, since >> the excess arguments are stored in an indirection vector. >> >> P.S. Indeed we could use the scheme used for arbitrary sized tuples to >> marshall extra arguments, but this would affect code generation much more. >> Different code would have to be used to marshall each argument beyond 15; >> whereas using the cons array bytecode >> >> > Didn't we discussed that already? > The fact that we have not super fast calls is OK for me. > But I prefer a single Array because I will use invokeWthArguments: FFI > primitive. > > transformFFICallwithManyArguments: aPattern > "Transform current parseNode into an invokeWithArguments: send > suitable for the case of many arguments" > > ^BlockNode new > temporaries: #() ; "Just to avoid later problems with > BlockAnalyzer" > arguments: #() > statements: (OrderedCollection with: (MessageNode new > receiver: (BlockNode new > temporaries: #() ; "Just to avoid later > problems with BlockAnalyzer" > arguments: #() > statements: (OrderedCollection > with: (MessageNode new > receiver: (encoder > encodeLiteral: encoder literals first) > selector: #invokeWithArguments: > arguments: aPattern arguments > precedence: 3 > from: encoder)) > returns: false > from: encoder) > selector: #ifError: > arguments: (Array with: (parseNode temporaries: > parseNode temporaries; yourself)) > precedence: 3 > from: encoder) asReturnNode) > returns: true > from: encoder > > to generate somthing like: > > <cdecl: long 'dtgexc_' (long* long* long* double* long* double* long* > double* long* double* long* long* long* double* long* long*)> > 65 <8B 78 00> callPrimitive: 120 > 68 <10> pushTemp: 0 > 69 <8F 10 00 04> closureNumCopied: 1 numArgs: 0 bytes 73 to 76 > 73 <23> pushConstant: <cdecl: long 'dtgexc_' (long* long* long* > double* long* double* long* double* long* double* long* long* long* double* > long* long*)> > 74 <10> pushTemp: 0 > 75 <E2> send: invokeWithArguments: > 76 <7D> blockReturn > 77 <8F 00 00 03> closureNumCopied: 0 numArgs: 0 bytes 81 to 83 > 81 <70> self > 82 <D4> send: externalCallFailed > 83 <7C> returnTop > 84 <E1> send: ifError: > 85 <7C> returnTop > > If first 14 arguments come individually, and excess arguments into a > separate Array, then I will have to remarshall all the arguments into a > larger Array. > Unless primitive 120 (primitiveCalloutToFFI) learns how to unmashall by > itself? > Currently primitive 120 will fail (I could eventually remove the primitive > number but I don't remember if some image side code depends on it...) > > Note that I have a kind of SmalltalkPattern that will answer the already > packed list of arguments if # >15 (temp 0 above) > SmalltalkPatternForCodeGeneration>>arguments > ^arrayArgumentVariable > ifNil: [argumentNodes asArray] > ifNotNil: [Array with: arrayArgumentVariable]. > > SmalltalkPattern>>bindArg: name encoder: encoder > "Accumulate another argument. > Check byte code limit and work around" > | node | > argumentNames size = 15 > ifTrue: [arrayArgumentVariable := encoder resetArgumentsAsArray: > #singleArrayOfArguments. > argumentNodes := encoder > rebindArguments: argumentNames > asArray: arrayArgumentVariable > pattern: self]. > argumentNames add: name. > arrayArgumentVariable isNil > ifTrue: [node := encoder bindTemp: name] > ifFalse: [node := self buildAccessorForArgumentRank: argumentNames > size encoder: encoder. > encoder bind: name to: node]. > node nowHasDef nowHasRef. > argumentNodes add: node. > ^ node > > For Marshalling, I already use the BraceNode, which we did not care yet to > optimize... > SmallapackMessageNode>>sizeCodeForValue: encoder > | total argSize | > arguments size > 15 ifFalse: [^super sizeCodeForValue: encoder]. > receiver == NodeSuper > ifTrue: [selector := selector copy "only necess for splOops"]. > total := selector > sizeCode: encoder > args: 1 > super: receiver == NodeSuper. > receiver == nil > ifFalse: [total := total + (receiver sizeCodeForValue: encoder)]. > "re-use equalNode for creating the array argument... not a very clean > hack" > equalNode := BraceNode new elements: arguments. > argSize := equalNode sizeCodeForValue: encoder. > total := total + argSize. > sizes := Array with: argSize. > ^ total > > 97 <70> self > 98 <75> pushConstant: 0 > 99 <E0> send: cIntegerPointerOn: > 100 <82 4F> popIntoTemp: 15 > 102 <70> self > 103 <43> pushLitVar: #Array=>Array > 104 <24> pushConstant: 16 > 105 <E2> send: braceStream: > 106 <88> dup > 107 <70> self > 108 <10> pushTemp: 0 > 109 <E5> send: cLogicalPointerOn: > 110 <C4> send: nextPut: > 111 <87> pop > 112 <88> dup > 113 <70> self > 114 <11> pushTemp: 1 > 115 <E5> send: cLogicalPointerOn: > 116 <C4> send: nextPut: > 117 <87> pop > 118 <88> dup > 119 <70> self > 120 <12> pushTemp: 2 > 121 <E0> send: cIntegerPointerOn: > 122 <C4> send: nextPut: > 123 <87> pop > 124 <88> dup > 125 <13> pushTemp: 3 > 126 <C4> send: nextPut: > 127 <87> pop > 128 <88> dup > 129 <70> self > 130 <14> pushTemp: 4 > 131 <E0> send: cIntegerPointerOn: > 132 <C4> send: nextPut: > 133 <87> pop > 134 <88> dup > 135 <15> pushTemp: 5 > 136 <C4> send: nextPut: > 137 <87> pop > 138 <88> dup > 139 <70> self > 140 <16> pushTemp: 6 > 141 <E0> send: cIntegerPointerOn: > 142 <C4> send: nextPut: > 143 <87> pop > 144 <88> dup > 145 <17> pushTemp: 7 > 146 <C4> send: nextPut: > 147 <87> pop > 148 <88> dup > 149 <70> self > 150 <18> pushTemp: 8 > 151 <E0> send: cIntegerPointerOn: > 152 <C4> send: nextPut: > 153 <87> pop > 154 <88> dup > 155 <19> pushTemp: 9 > 156 <C4> send: nextPut: > 157 <87> pop > 158 <88> dup > 159 <70> self > 160 <1A> pushTemp: 10 > 161 <E0> send: cIntegerPointerOn: > 162 <C4> send: nextPut: > 163 <87> pop > 164 <88> dup > 165 <1B> pushTemp: 11 > 166 <C4> send: nextPut: > 167 <87> pop > 168 <88> dup > 169 <1C> pushTemp: 12 > 170 <C4> send: nextPut: > 171 <87> pop > 172 <88> dup > 173 <1D> pushTemp: 13 > 174 <C4> send: nextPut: > 175 <87> pop > 176 <88> dup > 177 <70> self > 178 <1E> pushTemp: 14 > 179 <E0> send: cIntegerPointerOn: > 180 <C4> send: nextPut: > 181 <87> pop > 182 <88> dup > 183 <1F> pushTemp: 15 > 184 <C4> send: nextPut: > 185 <87> pop > 186 <D6> send: braceArray > 187 <E1> send: > #xtgexcWithwantq:wantz:n:a:lda:b:ldb:q:ldq:z:ldz:ifst:ilst:work:lwork:info: > (1 arg) > 188 <87> pop > 189 <1F> pushTemp: 15 > 190 <D8> send: getHandle > 191 <76> pushConstant: 1 > 192 <E7> send: signedLongAt: > 193 <7C> returnTop > > For unmarshalling, I did not care too much to optimize the bytecode > either, because most use cases are just wrappers to FFI: > SmalltalkPatternForCodeGeneration>>buildAccessorForArgumentRank: index > encoder: encoder > | indexNode | > indexNode := encoder encodeLiteral: index. > ^ MessageForTooManyArgNode new > receiver: arrayArgumentVariable > selector: #at: > arguments: (Array with: indexNode) > precedence: 3 > from: encoder > > Note that the quick hacks that I already have could be transformed to the > form you suggest (14 args + excess_array) without too much efforts if you > think that primitiveCalloutToFFI (120) can be re-written to handle > 14+excess... > > I patched the old Squeak compiler in Smallapack to workaround this >>> limitation (it was easy enough to pass a single Array, and invoke FFI with >>> many args). >>> In modern Pharo flavour, this is more involved with the new OpalCompiler >>> (iit does not seem to be designed for extensibility as it seems necessary >>> to patch many pieces/subclasses for a single feature change...). >>> >>> But we now have Sista V1 bytecodes which removed a lot of limitations (# >>> inst vars, #literals, max jump offset ...). Alas I don't see a modified >>> limit for number of arguments (source: >>> https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01088801/document a bytecode set for adaptive >>> optimization): there is still a limit of 4 reserved bits in compiled method >>> header documented in link above. >>> Though, there is an adjacent unused bit now... >>> In Squeak,/Pharo, EncoderForSistaV1>>genSend:numArgs: suggests that the >>> limit is 31 (sic) >>> >>> (nArgs < 0 or: [nArgs > 31]) ifTrue: >>> [^self outOfRangeError: 'numArgs' index: nArgs range: 0 to: 31 >>> "!!"]. >>> >>> or at least 2047 if we believe code below: >>> >>> "234 11101010 i i i i i j j j Send Literal Selector >>> #iiiii (+ Extend A * 32) with jjj (+ Extend B * 8) Arguments" >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/blob/50992c3e5fed790b7e660954aee983f… >>> >>> Pharo also limit the numArgs to 15 whatever the encoding in >>> CompiledMethod>>newBytes:trailerBytes:nArgs:nTemps:nStack:nLits: >>> primitive: >>> >>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/blob/50992c3e5fed790b7e660954aee983f… >>> >>> But Squeak does not limit nArgs at all in >>> >>> EncoderForSistaV1>>computeMethodHeaderForNumArgs:numTemps:numLits:primitive: >>> >>> So my questions: >>> - is that doc up-to-date? >>> - if so, couldn't we expand the limit to 31 args by using the unused bit? >>> >>> Note: there is another unused bit in V3 (not adjacent), and the double >>> extended (send) byte code has room for 31 args in V3 too, since only the >>> first 3 bits of second byte encode the type of operation... >>> >> >> >> -- >> _,,,^..^,,,_ >> best, Eliot >> >

2 1

[Pharo 8.0] Build #8: SUCCESS
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #8 was: SUCCESS. Could not extract further issue information from commit message: oops Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[REMINDER] Camp Smalltalk 2019 in Charlotte, NC at the end of March!
by Mariano Martinez Peck Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

Happy New Year to All! For those that haven't heard, Instantiations is sponsoring a Camp Smalltalk on March 29th â March 31st 2019 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Please register for the event soon as spots will be limited. Event details and registration info are available at the following link: Camp Smalltalk Charlotte 2019 <https://www.eventbrite.com/e/camp-smalltalk-charlotte-2019-tickets-52380940…> Thanks to Instantiations, I will be flying down there too, so I hope I can at least see some of you :) -- Mariano https://twitter.com/MartinezPeck http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

1 0