I do have that issue often when loading my devstack configuration on Pharo 2.0 (as in�http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~philippeback/HOWebStack)

Doing everything again fixes the problem but fingers crossed are required.

It is a really annoying bug indeed.

Phil



---
Philippe Back
Dramatic Performance Improvements
Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027
Mail:phil@highoctane.be | Web: http://philippeback.eu
Blog: http://philippeback.be | Twitter: @philippeback
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/philippeback/videos

High Octane SPRL
rue cour Boisacq 101 | 1301 Bierges | Belgium

Featured on the Software Process and Measurement Cast
http://spamcast.libsyn.com
Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and Ability Engineering EADocX Value Added Reseller



On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 June 2013 14:13, Max Leske <maxleske@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been seeing a particular bug that I can only see when using the PharoVM and I was wondering if anybody else has been having the same issue.
>
> Under certain condition, a debugger will open displaying "SmallInteger does not understand <some message>". The stack top contains an integer (something of the form 138402, not sure how many digits), which explains the message. However, the situation actually looks like this:
>
> � � � � htmil anchor
> � � � � � � � � id: 'foo';
> � � � � � � � � �
>
> In this example, the error would be "SmallInteger does not understand #id:". So the stack top contains an integer instead of the receiver.
> Restarting the execution of the method and proceeding fixes the problem. I think I've seen that (using seaside), a new session will trigger the bug again.
>
> Apart from Seaside, I've also seen the same problem when loading Roberto Minelli's DevFlow into a Pharo 2.0 image. The debugger will open on a Metacello method.
>
> VM: latest PharoVM
> image: latest 2.0
> try this config: http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~RobertoMinelli/DevFlow with "ConfigurationOfDevFlow loadDevelopment"
>
>
> Has anybody else encountered this?
>
yes, couple months ago we had this issue.
It looks like it doesn't likes some bytecode sequence (which causing this)..
and this sequence is not appears that often.

If i remember Esteban said that changing compiler optimizations flags
fixed it..
but perhaps not on platform , you running on?

> Cheers,
> Max



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.