- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript class allInstances does not list all instances

by Oscar Nierstrasz

Right. I should have realized that. I was looking for a replacement for: Transcript closeAllViews which has disappeared in Pharo 3.0. So this seems to work: (Transcript dependents select: #isSystemWindow) do: #close Thanks, Oscar On 20 Aug 2014, at 17:59 , Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Oscar, > > It's because Transcript is only one instance of ThreadSafeTranscript. > 'Transcript open' doesn't create a new instance but opens a new window on that instance. > > Camille > > On 20 aoÃ»t 2014, at 17:30, Oscar Nierstrasz (gmail) <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> In the latest Pharo 3 for Mac: >> >> Transcript open. >> Transcript open. >> Transcript class allInstances inspect >> >> only shows one instance, not two. >> >> Why? >> >> Oscar >> > >

Aug. 21, 2014

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

by Nicolai Hess

2014-08-21 7:14 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > >> >> 2014-08-19 19:02 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Hi Nicolai, >>> >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: >>> >>> 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?) >>> >>> >>> Not necessarily. The closure implementation moves temps that need it >>> into an indirect temp vector. See eg my blog on the closure compiler. >>> >>> http://www.mirandabanda.org/cogblog/2008/06/07/closures-part-i/ >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> >>> >>> No. What about this: >>> >>> ^Point x: 1 y: (self a: 1 b: 2 c: 3) >>> >>> >>> Before sending a:b:c: the stack is >>> >>> Point >>> 1 >>> self >>> 1 >>> 2 >>> 3 >>> >>> >>> 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 :) >>> >>> >>> May be a bug in the old compiler. The stack size is the max of the >>> separate sizes in the method and each block. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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"? >>> >>> >>> No, it is how many things it pushes in the stack at the deepest point. >>> See my example above. >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> Looks like a bug in the Opal compiler :-). Well found. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am confused. >>> >>> >>> No you're not. You've found a bug. Now find its cause.... >>> >> >> >> No, I am still confused :) >> >> Maybe you can help me with, how the old compiler computes the stack frame >> in this examples: >> >> I changed CompiledMethod>>#needsFrameSize: >> to write the value for self numTemps and newFrameSize to the Transcript >> and compiled some simple functions: >> >> foo >> |a b| >> a:=1. >> b:=1. >> ^ a+b >> >> numTemps:2 >> frameSize: 2 >> >> ok, two temps and two pushes on the stack >> >> >> foo >> ^ [ 1+1 ] >> >> numTemps:0 >> frameSize: 2 >> >> ok, no temps and two pushs (push constant:1/push constant:1) on the stack >> >> >> >> >> >> foo >> ^ [|a b| a:=1. b:=1. a+b ] >> >> numTemps:0 >> frameSize: 4 >> >> ok, no (method) temps, why is the stackframe 4? Two block local temps and >> two pushs. >> >> >> |x y| >> x:=1. >> y:=1. >> ^ [|a b| a:=1. b:=1. a+b ] >> >> numTemps:2 >> frameSize: 2 >> >> Now what? Adding method temps enlarges the number of temps, ok. But the >> stackframe decreases? >> > > Looks like a bug. The stack size needed in > > |x y| > x:=1. > y:=1. > ^ [|a b| a:=1. b:=1. a+b ] > > is 4, unless the compiler is optimizing away the a+b and is replacing the > block with [1] ? The stack size of the outer method is 3 (2 temps + 1 for > the push of either 1 or the block). > No optimization, the bytecode is: 13 <76> pushConstant: 1 14 <68> popIntoTemp: 0 15 <76> pushConstant: 1 16 <69> popIntoTemp: 1 17 <8F 00 00 0A> closureNumCopied: 0 numArgs: 0 bytes 21 to 30 21 <73> pushConstant: nil 22 <73> pushConstant: nil 23 <76> pushConstant: 1 24 <68> popIntoTemp: 0 25 <76> pushConstant: 1 26 <69> popIntoTemp: 1 27 <10> pushTemp: 0 28 <11> pushTemp: 1 29 <B0> send: + 30 <7D> blockReturn 31 <7C> returnTop > > > >> Nicolai >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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" >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> Eliot (phone) >>> >> >> > > > -- > best, > Eliot >

Aug. 21, 2014

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

by Eliot Miranda

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > > 2014-08-19 19:02 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: > > Hi Nicolai, >> >> >> On Aug 19, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: >> >> 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?) >> >> >> Not necessarily. The closure implementation moves temps that need it >> into an indirect temp vector. See eg my blog on the closure compiler. >> >> http://www.mirandabanda.org/cogblog/2008/06/07/closures-part-i/ >> >> 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? >> >> >> >> No. What about this: >> >> ^Point x: 1 y: (self a: 1 b: 2 c: 3) >> >> >> Before sending a:b:c: the stack is >> >> Point >> 1 >> self >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> >> >> 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 :) >> >> >> May be a bug in the old compiler. The stack size is the max of the >> separate sizes in the method and each block. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> 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"? >> >> >> No, it is how many things it pushes in the stack at the deepest point. >> See my example above. >> >> >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> Looks like a bug in the Opal compiler :-). Well found. >> >> >> >> I am confused. >> >> >> No you're not. You've found a bug. Now find its cause.... >> > > > No, I am still confused :) > > Maybe you can help me with, how the old compiler computes the stack frame > in this examples: > > I changed CompiledMethod>>#needsFrameSize: > to write the value for self numTemps and newFrameSize to the Transcript > and compiled some simple functions: > > foo > |a b| > a:=1. > b:=1. > ^ a+b > > numTemps:2 > frameSize: 2 > > ok, two temps and two pushes on the stack > > > foo > ^ [ 1+1 ] > > numTemps:0 > frameSize: 2 > > ok, no temps and two pushs (push constant:1/push constant:1) on the stack > > > > > > foo > ^ [|a b| a:=1. b:=1. a+b ] > > numTemps:0 > frameSize: 4 > > ok, no (method) temps, why is the stackframe 4? Two block local temps and > two pushs. > > > |x y| > x:=1. > y:=1. > ^ [|a b| a:=1. b:=1. a+b ] > > numTemps:2 > frameSize: 2 > > Now what? Adding method temps enlarges the number of temps, ok. But the > stackframe decreases? > Looks like a bug. The stack size needed in |x y| x:=1. y:=1. ^ [|a b| a:=1. b:=1. a+b ] is 4, unless the compiler is optimizing away the a+b and is replacing the block with [1] ? The stack size of the outer method is 3 (2 temps + 1 for the push of either 1 or the block). > Nicolai > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> 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" >>> > >>> >> >> >> Eliot (phone) >> > > -- best, Eliot

Aug. 21, 2014

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

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Craig, On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Craig Latta <craig(a)netjam.org> wrote: > > 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)? > I don't know about in the pal compiler, but in the Squeak bytecode compiler look at users of the l=class ParseStack, i.e. MethodNode>>#generate:using:. cheers! thanks, > > -C > > -- > Craig Latta > netjam.org > +31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok) > + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS) > > > -- best, Eliot

Aug. 21, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] ConfigurationOfNastyJokes

by Ben Coman

stepharo wrote: > :) > > indeed this is tricky program. > > Stef I wouldn't smile :) I'd take this as notice that as Pharo becomes more popular, it becomes more of a target - the rewards are greater and therhave a wider pool from which . You can't really trust that the Author is as shown attached to the packages. Perhaps a feature to consider for Pharo 5 is some infrastructure for the Author to be by digital certificate rather than just typing text when prompted. Maybe we'll get this anyway with git integration. >> ConfigurationOfNastyJokes in MetaRepoForPharo30 looks like the >> first Pharo based virus. >> >> Havent loaded it as advised but from the MC Snapshot browser it looks >> like the code is doing some image saving, process removing, ... >> >> While I understand the fun side of it I would: >> - recommend not to load it ;) >> - recommend that we delete this config from MetaRepoForPharo30 >> >> Thx >> T. >> >> > > >

Aug. 21, 2014

Smalltalk Hub Slooooowdown

by Sean P. DeNigris

"Loading. Please wait." indefinitely on both Chrome and Safari (Mac 10.9.3) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Smalltalk-Hub-Slooooowdown-tp4773992.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Aug. 21, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Beacon and SystemLogger united

by stepharo

:) Some guys like me and (camillo) for example are more in straight line thinking but you are so right. Stef On 20/8/14 18:53, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > stepharo wrote >> I received Beacon (which at the end was trying to help defining a cool >> logger) as a sign that I lost my energy on building SystemLogger. Now I >> think that if I would not have built SystemLogger, we would not have got >> Beacon and our discussions would have been way poorer. > This is real wisdom. I too struggle with what appears to be duplication of > efforts, but I'm reminded of two related themes which Alan Kay talks about a > lot: > - evolution is closer to a random walk with a slight bias than a straight > line > - in biology, what often appears in human illustration/simulation as > components interacting in lock-step as if on a track is actually fortuitous, > made possible by the tremendous speed and energy of everything going on in > the cell > > So, as you discovered, and I need to be repeatedly reminded of, there is no > perfect world where the stars align and each piece moves with speed and > precision into its predestined place in the whole. There is only a sloppy, > often frustrating, two-steps-forward-one-step-back frenzy where what comes > out on the other side is hopefully better than what we started with. Said > more simply: "this is what winning looks like" > > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Beacon-and-SystemLogger-united-tp4773973p4773975.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Aug. 20, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] ConfigurationOfNastyJokes

by stepharo

:) indeed this is tricky program. Stef > ConfigurationOfNastyJokes in MetaRepoForPharo30 looks like the > first Pharo based virus. > > Havent loaded it as advised but from the MC Snapshot browser it looks > like the code is doing some image saving, process removing, ... > > While I understand the fun side of it I would: > - recommend not to load it ;) > - recommend that we delete this config from MetaRepoForPharo30 > > Thx > T. > >

Aug. 20, 2014

ConfigurationOfNastyJokes

by Torsten Bergmann

ConfigurationOfNastyJokes in MetaRepoForPharo30 looks like the first Pharo based virus. Havent loaded it as advised but from the MC Snapshot browser it looks like the code is doing some image saving, process removing, ... While I understand the fun side of it I would: - recommend not to load it ;) - recommend that we delete this config from MetaRepoForPharo30 Thx T.

Aug. 20, 2014

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

by Nicolai Hess

2014-08-19 19:02 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>: > Hi Nicolai, > > > On Aug 19, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > > 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?) > > > Not necessarily. The closure implementation moves temps that need it into > an indirect temp vector. See eg my blog on the closure compiler. > > http://www.mirandabanda.org/cogblog/2008/06/07/closures-part-i/ > > 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? > > > > No. What about this: > > ^Point x: 1 y: (self a: 1 b: 2 c: 3) > > > Before sending a:b:c: the stack is > > Point > 1 > self > 1 > 2 > 3 > > > 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 :) > > > May be a bug in the old compiler. The stack size is the max of the > separate sizes in the method and each block. > > > > >> >> 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"? > > > No, it is how many things it pushes in the stack at the deepest point. > See my example above. > > > >> 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 > > > > Looks like a bug in the Opal compiler :-). Well found. > > > > I am confused. > > > No you're not. You've found a bug. Now find its cause.... > No, I am still confused :) Maybe you can help me with, how the old compiler computes the stack frame in this examples: I changed CompiledMethod>>#needsFrameSize: to write the value for self numTemps and newFrameSize to the Transcript and compiled some simple functions: foo |a b| a:=1. b:=1. ^ a+b numTemps:2 frameSize: 2 ok, two temps and two pushes on the stack foo ^ [ 1+1 ] numTemps:0 frameSize: 2 ok, no temps and two pushs (push constant:1/push constant:1) on the stack foo ^ [|a b| a:=1. b:=1. a+b ] numTemps:0 frameSize: 4 ok, no (method) temps, why is the stackframe 4? Two block local temps and two pushs. |x y| x:=1. y:=1. ^ [|a b| a:=1. b:=1. a+b ] numTemps:2 frameSize: 2 Now what? Adding method temps enlarges the number of temps, ok. But the stackframe decreases? Nicolai > > > > >> >> 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" >> > >> > > > Eliot (phone) >

Aug. 20, 2014