Hi Ron, Hi All,

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Ron Teitelbaum <ron@usmedrec.com> wrote:

Hi All,

��

Sorry I���m joining this conversation late.��

��

We are using ImageSegment for transferring croquet island state.�� Is this something covered in the changes from Bert or are we talking about dropping ImageSegment altogether?��


I suppose I should explain.�� At ESUG Bert and others announced support for Toys in Squeak 5.1.�� As part of this work, ImageSegment loading and saving was moved from the VM up into pure Smalltalk code.�� This allows Squeak 5.1 (Spur) to load image segments saved on pre-Spur VMs.�� Consequent;ly we no longer need VM support for ImageSegment.�� Instead we can use the pure image-level code Bert has kindly written.�� The question is then at what point can we nuke the Spur VM support, since it is now superfluous.

Bert, am I jumping the gun?�� Do we still need to write image-level support for writing image segments?�� If this is the case, Igor Stasenko described a primitive for collecting the set of objects to be written out.�� It is the initial part of the segment-writing primitive that collects the transitive closure of objects reachable only from those root objects.
��

��

All the best,

��

Ron Teitelbaum

��

From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Eliot Miranda
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:47 PM
To: Squeak Virtual Machine Development Discussion
Cc: Pharo Development List; The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Re: Nuking VM ImageSegment support (was Re: [squeak-dev] Daily Commit Log; System-bf.916)

��

Hi Max,

��

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Max Leske <maxleske@gmail.com> wrote:

��

��

On 22 Sep 2016, at 20:28, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:

��

Hi Bert, Hi All,

��

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:55 PM, <commits@source.squeak.org> wrote:

[snip]

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/packages/2016-September/068930.html

Name: System-bf.916
Ancestors: System-bf.915

Replace VM-level ImageSegment loading with a Smalltalk implementation for old (interpreter-era) projects.

Also removes support for writing segments.

This overrides the Spur support introduced in System-eem.758.

��

��So one question is should we delete VM support for ImageSegment from the Spur VM?�� There's at least 1.5k of generated source for the Spur ImageSegment load and save support, some 2% of the interpreter/primitives source code.�� That's a lot, and the code is complex and ugly.�� If it never really worked before IMO we should nuke it asap.�� If it worked in some fashion perhaps we can schedule its demise for the 6.0 release's VM.

��

What do others think?

��

As long as you don���t remove it from the Cog VM���s until I no longer need it I���m fine with that.

��

And when would that be?�� Do you mean that you use it in ways not covered by Bert's modifications (which render the VM support superfluous), or do you mean that you use ImageSegment as a naive consumer and are happy just so long as it works?

��

��

Max



��

_,,,^..^,,,_

best,��Eliot

��

��



��

--

_,,,^..^,,,_

best,��Eliot







--
_,,,^..^,,,_
best,��Eliot