- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1028: 16303-Unload-Old-Compiler
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr June 9, 2018

June 9, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1028 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #1508 was integrated: "16303-Unload-Old-Compiler" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1508 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/16303 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1027: 21225-Unknown-message-nonBlockTempsIn-sent-in-RBBasicLintRuleTestclasstempsReadBeforeWritten
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1027 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #1506 was integrated: "21225-Unknown-message-nonBlockTempsIn-sent-in-RBBasicLintRuleTestclasstempsReadBeforeWritten" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1506 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21225 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

Weird Warnings at startup
by Sven Van Caekenberghe June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

Hi, For a couple of days I am seeing a number of weird warnings at startup (via Growl/inform). Here is a screenshot: It seems to go away once the image is in use. Sven

2 2

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1026: 22039-Introduce-displayScaleFactor
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1026 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #1461 was integrated: "22039-Introduce-displayScaleFactor" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1461 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/scaleFactor Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

Re: [Pharo-dev] ApplicationSecurity Questions
by Sean DeNigris June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

> You can check a project making use of ApplicationSecurity here: > http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~hernan/IGEVET Pharo 6.1: - No #development version for Iliad, had to add to ConfigurationOfIliad - ConfigurationOfNacl - had to comment out #preload, which failed to download libsodium (apparently the dropbox link no longer works). I was able to procure the library elsewhere - ERROR: DNU #selector from RBParser >>#externalFunctionDeclaration when trying to parse: apiDeleteDC: aHDC <apicall: bool 'DeleteDC' (Win32HDC) module:'gdi32.dll'> ^self externalCallFailed Pharo 5: - ConfigurationOfNacl - had to comment out #preload, which failed to download libsodium (apparently the dropbox link no longer works). I was able to procure the library elsewhere - BioFormatters-HernanMoralesDurand.118 complained about missing PMVector, clicked proceed and no more problems Since Iâm not familiar with Iliad, I wasnât sure how to run the app. I manually executed IGEVETApplication>>#startUp to get the server going, but wasnât sure what URL to type into the browser. I tried a few things that all returned 404 like: - http://localhost:9999/IC - http://localhost:9999/chromopainter-jobs - http://localhost:9999/IC/chromopainter-jobs Also from my previous reply (not sure if you saw it): > Out of curiosity, why Iliad instead of Seaside? Would Iliad be your default/recommendation for new web apps? > Is it well-supported/maintained? It doesnât seem to have much recent activity unless Iâm looking at the wrong repo. Thanks! - s

1 0

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1025: 22087-Integrate-new-Calypso-v0114
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1025 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #1505 was integrated: "22087-Integrate-new-Calypso-v0114" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1505 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22087 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Why do we have SmallDictionary?
by Andres Valloud June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

In addition, open addressing with linear probing has superior cache line read behavior (no indirection / random traversal, and if the first probe misses the second one was likely cached by the first one). On 6/8/18 1:37 , Levente Uzonyi wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2018, ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: > >> Hi Max, >> Theoretically, for a small number of elements, usually somewhere >> between 3 and 30 depending on implementations, a linear search is >> faster than a hash search, especially in the Pharo dictionary hash search >> implementation. >> >> Efficient dictionary implementations are usually bucket-based. The >> dictionary holds a certain number of buckets, and based on the key >> hash, the bucket where the key value is present is determined. Small >> buckets are linear (arrays or linked list). Large buckets are >> typically balanced binary trees (red-black trees typically). Under a >> certain number of elements there is a single bucket, which means a linear >> search is performed, as for the SmallDictionary. When it grows the >> dictionary search becomes a combination between a hash search and a >> linear or tree search. > > The bucket-based list you described is called separate chaining > collision resolution, and it won't have any better performance in Squeak > than the currently used open addressing. > However, it is preferrable, when you can't trust your hash function. > When you do "crazy" things, like using a tree as a bucket, you just > exchange the possible O(n) worst case time with O(log(n)). > >> >> Pharo dictionary search is first hash-based, then all the buckets are >> represented next to each other in the same arrays and a linear search >> is performed there, leading to many collisions and slower search >> time (especially when the element is not found), sometimes the code >> searches over multiple buckets because the dictionary is too full or >> there are too many near-collisions. The memory consumption is >> competitive with the advanced implementations though (precise >> measurements would need to be made). > > This is called open addressing, and if your hash function is good > enough, the lists are short, so those "many collisions and slower search > time" just don't happen. And no, separate chaining needs a lot more > memory than open addressing, unless you manage to get rid of > Associations, but that's a lot harder than it sounds like. > >> >> Method dictionaries are represented differently to optimize the >> look-up logic. > > MethodDictionary is optimized to let the VM do lookups more easily. > Memory consumption is worse when the dictionary is sparse, but gets > better as it gets filled up compared to the current Dictionary > implementation (assuming Pharo still uses the same representation as > Squeak does). > >> >> If you want to improve things and have one dictionary implementation >> instead of two, implement or look for a bucket based dictionary and >> put it in the base image instead of Dictionary. This is quite some work >> since there are many APIs to port. You can look at the Pinnochio >> implementation, it's quite good but they've not implemented large >> buckets. > > Well, as an experiment, I'm sure it'll be fun. But don't expect better > performance nor better memory usage. > > Levente > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was messing around with SmallDictionary when I suddenly >> realised that I can't find a single reason to use it over a normal >> Dictionary. While its name and class comment imply that it is somehow >> an optimised Dictionary, I don't see any measurement where that >> actually holds up. The following was run in a Pharo 7 image on a >> recent VM (see below): >> >> | d | >> d := SmallDictionary new. >> d sizeInMemory. "24" >> [100000 timesRepeat: [ >> 1 to: 100 do: [ :i | d at:i put: i] ] ] timeToRun. >> "0:00:00:05.226" >> >> [100000 timesRepeat: [ >> d at: 48 ifAbsent: [] ] ] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.041" >> >> >> >> | d | >> d := Dictionary new. >> d sizeInMemory. "16" >> [100000 timesRepeat: [ >> 1 to: 100 do: [ :i | d at:i put: i] ] ] timeToRun. >> "0:00:00:00.385" >> [100000 timesRepeat: [ >> d at: 48 ifAbsent: [] ] ] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.006" >> >> >> As you can see, SmallDictionary is 8 bytes larger per instance >> and significantly faster while reading and writing (I know that this >> isn't a good benchmark but it suffices to make my point). >> >> >> Is anyone aware of a reason for hanging on to SmallDictionary? >> I'm also curious to know how SmallDictionary came to be. There must >> have been some advantage over Dictionary at some point in the >> past. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Max >> >> >> >> >> >> Image version: Pharo 7.0 >> Build information: >> Pharo-7.0+alpha.build.961.sha.a69e72a97136bc3f93831584b6efa2b1703deb84 >> (32 Bit) >> >> VM version: CoInterpreter VMMaker.oscog- nice.2281 uuid: >> 4beeaee7-567e-1a4b-b0fb-bd95ce302516 Nov 27 2017 >> StackToRegisterMappingCogit VMMaker.oscog-nice.2283 uuid: >> 2d20324d-a2ab-48d6-b0f6-9fc3d66899da Nov 27 2017 >> VM: 201711262336 >> https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm.git $ Date: Mon Nov >> 27 00:36:29 2017 +0100 $ Plugins: 201711262336 >> https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm.git $ >> >> OS: macOS 10.13.5 >> Machine: MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports) >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ClÃ©ment BÃ©ra >> https://clementbera.github.io/https://clementbera.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > >

1 0

#literals and #hasLiteral: not in sync
by Marcus Denker June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

Hi, As you might now, we abuse the literals of compiled methods to hold on to the class and the literal. (and the place used to store the literal is used for additional properties if there are some). So right now we have the problem that #literals just returns all the literals and clients do âallButLastâ to filter out the class binging, but they ignore the selector. #hasLiteral: doe the filtering *and* it filters the last two. All quite confusing. So, this is true: (Object >> #yourself) literals includes: #yourself. (Object >> #yourself) hasLiteralSuchThat: [ :lit | lit = #yourself]. but this is false: (Object >> #yourself) hasLiteral: #yourself. (Object >> #yourself) hasLiteralThorough: #yourself. I suggest we make this simpler by: -> #allLiterals return all the literals, even the abused last two -> #literals returns what you think it should: the true literals of the method, without the last two abused fields. -> fix all cases of âliterals allButLastâ, there are not many. https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1502/files <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1502/files> Is there any reason why this could be bad? Marcus

2 2

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1024: 22072-Begin-to-add-requirements-to-BaselineOfDisplay
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1024 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #1490 was integrated: "22072-Begin-to-add-requirements-to-BaselineOfDisplay" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1490 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22072 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Issue Tracker] Please check issue tracker
by Marcus Denker June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

Hi, If you -> submitted an issue in the past -> have been involved in some discussion about an issue ===> please check the issue tracker. There are many cases where e.g. - some issue has been fixed but the issue tracker entry is not closed - where a discussion came to a conclusion but no action happened. - you reported issue has been fixed in the meantime but the issue tracker entry is still open. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/57/All-newest-first We have right now 471 open issues, I am sure we can get that number down! Marcus

1 0