Hi Eliot, Quoting Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:

Hi All,       I want to check my understanding of reference semantics for image segments as I'm close to completing the Spur implementation.  Specifically the question is whether objects reachable only through weak pointers should be included in an image segment or not.   Remember that an image segment is created from the transitive closure of an Array of root objects, the /segment roots/. i.e. we can think of an image segment as a set of objects created by tracing the object graph from the segment roots.   The segment always includes the segment roots.  Except for the roots, objects are excluded from the segment that are also reachable form the roots of the system (the /system roots/, effectively the root environment, Smalltalk, and the stack of the current process).   Consider a weak array in the transitive closure that is not reachable from the system roots, and hence should be included in the segment.  Objects referenced from that weak array may be in one of three categories   - reachable from the system roots (and hence not to be included in the segment) - /not/ reachable form the system roots, but reachable from the segment roots via strong pointers (and hence to be included in the segment) - /not/ reachable form the system roots, /not/ reachable from the segment roots via strong pointers   Should this last category be included or excluded from the segment?  I think that it makes no difference, and excluding them is only an optimization.  The argument is as follows.  Imagine that immediately after loading the image segment there is a garbage collection.  That garbage collection will collect all the objects in the last category as they are only reachable from the weak arrays in the segment.  Hence we are free to follow weak references as if they are strong when we create the image segment, leaving it to subsequent events to reclaim those objects.     An analogous argument accounts for objects reachable from ephemerons.  Is my reasoning sound? -- best, Eliot

I think you are right. But there is a risk of somehow, someone, gaining a strong reference to the object after the image segment was created, breaking our invariants when the segment is loaded again. An object might be (not reachable / strongly reachable / weakely reachable) from system roots and / or segment roots. This gives us 9 possibilities. Six of them are easy (and I'll not go into them). The other three are tricky: a- Not reachable from system roots. Weakely reachable from segment roots. Do not include them. It is best to run a GC before building the image segment, to get rid of them (run termination, etc). This is to avoid the risk of the object gaining somehow a strong reference after the segment is built, making the segment miss the weak ref to it. Doing this way would also mean that any objects affected by termination would be consistent, both in the image and in the segment. b- Weakely reachable from system roots. Weakely reachable from segment roots. Do not include them. If the object manages to survive by gaining a strong ref from the system roots, the weak ref will be repaired on segment load (Am I right on this?) If the original object was included in the segment, then on segment load it would point to a duplicate object that is about to be collected (and maybe terminated?) In any case, doing this way would also mean that any objects affected by termination would be consistent, both in the image and in the segment. c- Weakely reachable from system roots. Strongly reachable from segment roots. Do include them. It seems reasonable to run a GC and get rid of them after unloading the segment, to avoid the risk of the object gaining somehow a strong ref in the image, and being duplicated on segment load. But doing as I say means that we would be loading into the image an object that was already terminated, although in the state it had before running termination. Not really sure if this is ok. There could be some risk of objects in the segment being in some pre-termination state, with some objects in the image being in some after-termination state. In any case, this would suggest bad design... So perhaps it makes sense to throw an exception in these cases? I hope this rant is of use. Cheers, Juan Vuletich

Sorry for breaking the stream. I could not find the email with thunderbird :( Just for the record, you see what netstyle people did: they use image segment and they had to kill everything (like processes and others) because of possible pointers so after saving a segment the image was basically dead because some escaping pointers to make a kind of memory leak. Now they migrated to Fuel. So now I think that people should better use Fuel. IS were nice at first but not when you look carefully to them, especially when you have an object not in the roots pointing to an object inside the graph. Then you have to do a GC…. Mariano spent a year fighting with that and his PhD is really nice. Less magic, more stability, simpler VMs. Because all the energy that you will put in something from the past will not be put in things for the future(not counting the bug hunting). Stef On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:26 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: While I as a big fan of imageSegment and proposed to mariano to work on imageSegment2 (it was the original idea for his phd) he convinced us that imagesegment were not worth their complexity. I absolutely agree. So why do you want to have imageSegment? Because of backwards-compatibility. If Spur does not provide image segments then the barrier to entry for Terf, eToys and Squeak may be too high. Spur is supposed to be a plug-in replacement for Cog, not something that requires lots of effort to port to