March 2017 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Release of the Spec book

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Congrats Johan and Steph, I'm eager to read it and surely I will create some interactive notebooks with reading notes to be used for other learners in the GSoC. Spec has been important for Grafoscopio, particularly the Spec-GT bindings. Cheers, Offray On 17/03/17 03:32, Johan Fabry wrote: > Hi all, > > StÃ©phane and I are happy to announce the 1.0 release of the book on Spec, the UI framework for Pharo!! > > This book was needed because the existing documentation was not really user-friendly and dispersed. I gathered everything I could find, sorted, filtered and rewrote, in collaboration with Stef. This is the reference documentation of Spec for Pharo 5 and 6, as well as my Magnum Opus on Spec (I have other ones on other topics ;-) ). We hope it will be useful for you. > > A small overview of the content: This book first shows the basics of Spec and how it enables reuse of UIs. It then treats UI layout in detail before moving on to explaining the management of windows. Some of the more advanced widgets are also discussed as well as the dynamic features of Spec. Lastly, the book also contains a chapter with tips and tricks. > > You can download a pdf of the book at http://files.pharo.org/books/spec-tutorial/ and also buy a hardcopy here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/johan-fabry-and-stÃ©phane-ducasse/the-spec-ui-fram… Itâs only 9.99EUR so so you can easily afford it, and moreover all proceedings of sales go the the Pharo association ! > > -- > Does this mail seem too brief? Sorry for that, I donât mean to be rude! Please see http://emailcharter.org . > > Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry > PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > >

March 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Specifying library dependencies in UFFI

by raffaello.giulietti＠lifeware.ch

Hi Pierce, sure, this works on any Unix-like system. On 17/03/17 03:37, Pierce Ng wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:31:45AM +0100, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: >> Suppose my code directly accesses "my.dll" which, in turn, depends >> on "her.dll" which my code does not need directly and suppose that >> library is located in folder "<path-to-her-folder>". How can I >> enforce the UFFI to perform the search there? > > > On Linux, I use a shell script "gopharo" to run the VM: > > #!/bin/sh > PHAROVMPATH=$(dirname `readlink -f "$0"`) > LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$PHAROVMPATH" exec "$PHAROVMPATH/pharo" $@ > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH is customizable. In my case, I place 3rd party files like > libsqlite.so, libunqlite.so together with the standard VM files. > > Pierce > >

March 17, 2017

[ANN] Release of the Spec book

by Johan Fabry

Hi all, StÃ©phane and I are happy to announce the 1.0 release of the book on Spec, the UI framework for Pharo!! This book was needed because the existing documentation was not really user-friendly and dispersed. I gathered everything I could find, sorted, filtered and rewrote, in collaboration with Stef. This is the reference documentation of Spec for Pharo 5 and 6, as well as my Magnum Opus on Spec (I have other ones on other topics ;-) ). We hope it will be useful for you. A small overview of the content: This book first shows the basics of Spec and how it enables reuse of UIs. It then treats UI layout in detail before moving on to explaining the management of windows. Some of the more advanced widgets are also discussed as well as the dynamic features of Spec. Lastly, the book also contains a chapter with tips and tricks. You can download a pdf of the book at http://files.pharo.org/books/spec-tutorial/ and also buy a hardcopy here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/johan-fabry-and-stÃ©phane-ducasse/the-spec-ui-fram… Itâs only 9.99EUR so so you can easily afford it, and moreover all proceedings of sales go the the Pharo association ! -- Does this mail seem too brief? Sorry for that, I donât mean to be rude! Please see http://emailcharter.org . Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

March 17, 2017

Magritte extension

by Asbath Sama biyalou

Hello. I am using Magritte to generate reports for a pharo class. I want to customize generated components in order to have a better design. My class is Match Object subclass: #Match instanceVariableNames: 'date_match hour_match status actions stadium comments teams goals1 goals2 competition' classVariableNames: '' category: MyProject-Entity' Descriptions for some variables. Stadium is also a Class. Match>>descriptionStadium <magritteDescription> ^ MASingleOptionDescription new label: 'Stadium'; priority: 305; accessor: #stadium; options: Team allStadiumsName; componentClass: TBSMagritteSelectListComponent; beRequired; yourself Match>>descriptionTeams <magritteDescription> ^ MAMultipleOptionDescription new label: 'Teams'; priority: 805; accessor: #teams; options: Team allTeamsName; componentClass: MAMultiselectListComponent; yourself The generated component in the form is not very pretty. I want to have multiple checkbox. Match>>descriptionStatus <magritteDescription> ^ MASingleOptionDescription new label: 'Status'; priority: 505; accessor: #status; options: #('Pas en cours' 'En Cours' 'Mi-temps' 'TerminÃ©'); componentClass: TBSMagritteSelectListComponent; yourself For the report I use the class SEMatchReport TBSMagritteReport subclass: #SEMatchReport instanceVariableNames: 'report' classVariableNames: '' category: 'MyProject-Components' SEMatchReport class>>from | report matchs commandColumn | matchs := Match selectAll. report:= self rows: matchs description: (self filteredDescriptionsFrom: matchs anyOne). commandColumn := MACommandColumn new. (SEMatchReport new session isSimpleAdmin) ifTrue: [ report addColumn: (commandColumn addCommandOn: report selector: #editMatch: text: 'Modifier'; yourself; addCommandOn: report selector: #addAction: text: 'Ajouter une action'; yourself ) ] ifFalse: [ report addColumn: (commandColumn addCommandOn: report selector: #editMatch: text: 'Modifier'; yourself; addCommandOn: report selector: #deleteMatch: text: 'Supprimer'; yourself; addCommandOn: report selector: #addAction: text: 'Ajouter une action'; yourself ) ]. ^ report I want to put some bootstrapp icons near commandColumn actions. like pencil or delete on 'Supprimer'. SEMatchReport class>>filteredDescriptionsFrom: aMatch ^ aMatch magritteDescription select: [ :each | #(date_match hour_match stadium goals1 goals2 teams) includes: each accessor selector ] I notice that on the generated report on column stadium we have aStadium. We don't have the value (the name). I don't know how to mention it in the filtered descriptions. Change the color of lines in the report, etc. All that things. Sorry for the bad english. Thanks. Asbath

March 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Specifying library dependencies in UFFI

by phil＠highoctane.be

It is true that you can kill an image or two doing this. A reason why I added this little thing https://github.com/Pharophile/HOImageSaver and use it quite often. I also got a debug and assert VM to build for Windows, so I have the full symbols table available. Running Pharo and, say CodeBlocks IDE side by side, and connecting GDB in CodeBlocks through attach to process using the Pharo PID works pretty well to figure out what is going on. I am also using Snagit a lot to capture screenshots with values etc for future reference. Using a remote Pharo image from another image that will stay untouched may be a better way to go in the future but will not really work if one has a breakpoint triggered in the remote one anyway,.. But I found the process of wrapping a library pretty much painless compared to the sea of wrapping code one gets from Swig for example. Once we will have wrapped a couple external libraries with UFFI I expect some patterns to emerge and our ability to wrap things to be enhanced drastically, to the point that we will see incredible growth in terms of capabilities. We will then really up our game on how to load code from a central repo, a la npmjs, or mavencentral, or gems, or pip. Because it sucks big time in a couple of occasions. With any tech, there is always this hype cycle with the disullusionment after the "peak of excitement" and that is needed to reach the productivity. I would urge all Pharo users to keep pushing and not let go of the vision, because there is really nothing like Pharo around. I just got remembered of how good it was yesterday: a given job stopped processing its input because the underlying format of the file changed under its feet. It was a matter of 30 minutes between diagnostic and fix, and I was able to deliver the output for a critical meeting by the client. There is zero way I would have been able to inspect, diagnose, and fix that fast with something else. Using Pharo makes someone a kind of maverick but the vista is quite good. Phil On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > My point was that anything you do in Pharo will lower performance quite a > bit, but it wont be noticable anyway unless its in a big loop or something. > > Second that Pharo cannot debug such issues which is a huge deal when you > work with OS stuff and OS calls. > > You are far better doing this outside UFFI and straight inside a C IDE > because you will have an army of tools that will make your life a ton > easier. > > Hence why I talked about performance, C coding and Pharo crashes. > > In my case I had to write and test the code in C to port it to UFFI > because it was impossible to resolve the bugs from inside Pharo. Also > crashing Pharo all the time got really annoying and I managed to corrupt a > couple of images too in the process. > > Of course debugging C code from a C IDE is quite similar to how you work > with Pharo. > > I also got an experience with loading libraries because I worked with > Shared memory mapped files which is the technology OS uses to load DLLs. > Its really low level stuff that come directly from OS kernel. It was a ton > of fun. > > Also C is easier because obviously there is a ton of docs and all you have > to do is copy paste. In case of UFFI you have to first figure out the C > code and then how to convert it to UFFI so its double the effort for little > gain. Its much better thing to just wrap C code and minimize the usage of > UFFI. > > The benefits of Pharo are lost anyway as soon as you drop so low level. > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:05 PM <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch> wrote: > >> Indeed, experimenting using some combination of AddDllDirectory(), >> SetDllDirectory() and LoadLibraryEx() was in my plan for next week. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> On 16/03/17 11:59, Mark Bestley wrote: >> > Yes the calling process can alter where these indirect DLLs are loaded >> > from and so should be able to be done in UFFI and directly from >> Smalltalk >> > >> > The OS will load the DLL specified then it runs DllMain and doing that >> > causes the OS to load any DLLs that it calls >> > >> > MSDN https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7d83bc18.aspx says >> > >> > With both implicit and explicit linking, Windows first searches for >> > "known DLLs", such as Kernel32.dll and User32.dll. Windows then searches >> > for the DLLs in the following sequence: >> > The directory where the executable module for the current process is >> > located. >> > The current directory. >> > The Windows system directory. The GetSystemDirectory function retrieves >> > the path of this directory. >> > The Windows directory. The GetWindowsDirectory function retrieves the >> > path of this directory. >> > The directories listed in the PATH environment variable. >> > >> > >> > This can be changed using the call LoadLibraryEx instead of LoadLibrary >> > Flags can be set to change the directories used >> > >> > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ >> ms684179(v=vs.85).aspx >> > >> > >> > >> > Also see AddDllDirectory >> > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ >> hh310513(v=vs.85).aspx >> > >> > >> > Mark >> > >> > On 15/03/2017 17:22, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: >> >> Hi Dimitris, >> >> >> >> I don't get your point about proper C coding, C performance or Pharo >> >> crashes. It is not the focus of this thread. >> >> >> >> How dependencies between libraries are resolved at load-time is >> dictated >> >> by the OS. If the OS offers a working mechanism to specify folders that >> >> the OS uses to search for libraries at load-time, well, I think that >> >> Pharo, hence the UFFI, should offer it as well and in a more >> fashionable >> >> format. >> >> UFFI is quite elegant in many respects but I wouldn't call it a >> >> minimalist design (zero hand holding, if I understand you correctly). >> >> But I'm happy the extra elegance is there because it makes life more >> >> comfortable. >> >> >> >> Again, I still have to experiment with SetDllDirectory() in the case of >> >> Windows, so I'm not in a position to say something authoritative yet. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2017-03-15 17:41, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: >> >>> Please note the moment you use a FFI of any language you step to a C >> >>> territory. VMs tend not to touch the code because the code is already >> >>> in machine code format. >> >>> >> >>> There is zero reason for UFFI to worry about the dependencies of a >> >>> library loaded, this must happen at the library level that UFFI does >> >>> not focus on. >> >>> >> >>> What you describe here is standard practice because the vast majority >> >>> of libraries depend on other libraries. In the end UFFI or any FFI in >> >>> any language is not there to replace proper C coding but rather to >> >>> allow you to utilize C libraries. You cannot hope to achieve >> >>> performance comparable to C if you try to use a language that is not C >> >>> to do standard things like dependency management. >> >>> >> >>> If the library fail to load it wont be because of UFFI it will be >> >>> because the library is buggy at handling its dependencies. That means >> >>> that the library will be buggy even if you use it from C directly. >> >>> >> >>> Even you do not know what you doing at C level, you going to crash >> >>> Pharo countless times anyway and the least of your worries will be >> >>> handling dependencies which far more obvious than some other nasty C >> >>> bugs. >> >>> >> >>> I think its a great idea that UFFI does zero hand holding. This way it >> >>> gives the clear message that if you do not understand C then you >> >>> should not be using the UFFI in the first place. >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:51 PM Esteban Lorenzano >> >>> <estebanlm(a)gmail.com >> >>> <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > On 15 Mar 2017, at 15:44, Raffaello Giulietti >> >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > On 2017-03-15 15:20, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 15:08, Raffaello Giulietti >> >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Esteban, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> I understand this is the current status of the UFFI, so I can >> >>> certainly use the workarounds discussed below. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> But I hope UFFI will soon offer a more "declarative" way to >> >>> specify the search folders, kind of LD_LIBRARY_PATH mechanism but >> >>> in the UFFI. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> that will NOT solve the problem of dependencies of libraries >> >>> indirectly references. >> >>> >> There is no way to do that (indirect reference solving) on an >> >>> executing program that I know. >> >>> >> So is not âcurrent status of UFFIâ: it will never provide that. >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > Do you mean that SetDllDirectory() has no influence when invoked >> >>> between Pharo's start and the LoadLibrary() call done by the UFFI? >> >>> >> >>> I really have no idea. You can try to add it to your app. >> >>> >> >>> Esteban >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> All that, unless someone come and says: "look, Esteban is like >> >>> thisâ. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I spent last three weeks (not full time of course) trying to do >> >>> exactly that for our current linux vm, to force libgit2 to use the >> >>> version of libssh2 we want (and not the version on system)â¦ and I >> >>> failed. I solved some cases, but not all. So at the end I opted to >> >>> change zeroconf to define LD_LIBRARY_PATH before calling pharo. >> >>> Only way I found I can force the lookup paths. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> cheers, >> >>> >> Esteban >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Greetings >> >>> >>> Raffaello >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On 2017-03-15 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> >>> >>>> Hi, >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> UFFI cannot do what you want. >> >>> >>>> If I understand well, you have: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Pharo -> libA.dll -> libB.dll >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Pharo does a LoadLibrary(libA.dll), but has no control on how >> >>> libA calls libBâ¦ and is not possible for us to influence it more >> >>> than the predefined platform ways. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> One posible workaround (just possible, no idea if it will >> >>> work) is to perform a load of libB before is required by libB. >> >>> Then hopefully the loader will understand is same library and will >> >>> answer same handler (but not sure, because if it discriminates by >> >>> pathâ¦ then youâre in the same position). Anyway, if you want to >> >>> try it, it would be something like this: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> DynamicLoader loadLibrary: 'path/to/libB.dllâ. >> >>> >>>> DynamicLoader loadLibrary: 'path/to/libA.dllâ. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> then you can try to execute functions of libAâ¦ >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> cheers, >> >>> >>>> Esteban >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 14:32, Raffaello Giulietti >> >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> On 2017-03-15 13:51, Ben Coman wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Raffaello Giulietti >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Hi Ben, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> my understanding is that SetDllDirectory only affects the >> >>> search >> >>> >>>>>> path of libraries that are loaded at *run-time* with >> >>> LoadLibrary. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> What I'm asking for is a mechanism that works at >> >>> *load-time*, when a >> >>> >>>>>> library I'm accessing directly depends on another one >> >>> which I'm not >> >>> >>>>>> targeting directly. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> I don't quite follow. I'm not intimate with Windows >> >>> dynamic loading, so >> >>> >>>>>> these questions are an opportunity for me to learn... >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> You can't mean when Pharo loads, because it wouldn't know >> >>> of OTHER.DLL ? >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Do you mean that LoadLibrary is not called explicitly by >> >>> YOUR.DLL before >> >>> >>>>>> its uses the function from OTHER.DLL? >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> During the build of YOUR.DLL, you can specify that it should >> >>> depend on OTHER.LIB (kind of binary which lists function headers >> >>> and static data declarations for OTHER.DLL). Linking resolution is >> >>> then done at load-time of YOUR.DLL, not by invoking >> >>> LoadLibrary("OTHER.DLL"). >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> When YOUR.DLL is loaded by UFFI at run-time (here by means >> >>> of LoadLibrary(), I guess), Windows (not the UFFI) also attempts >> >>> to load OTHER.DLL because of the linking information gathered >> >>> during the build. Notice that the linking information does *not* >> >>> include a specific path for OTHER.DLL. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> (You don't have to mention standard *.LIBs like Kernel32.lib >> >>> because they are included by default. But of course, Windows knows >> >>> where to find the corresponding .dll.) >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> OTHER.DLL is searched using the strategy described in the >> >>> MSDN page you mention. My expectation is/was that UFFI has/had an >> >>> API for specifying the search paths where to find OTHER.DLL in a >> >>> platform-independent way. In other words, I would expect the UFFI >> >>> to do the call of SetDllDirectory() or whatever is needed on >> >>> Windows for me or to use other mechanisms on other platforms. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Do you mean you link OTHER.DLL to YOUR.DLL at compile time? >> >>> >>>>>> But still, YOUR.DLL it not loaded until called via Pharo >> >>> FFI, so neither >> >>> >>>>>> is OTHER.DLL, >> >>> >>>>>> and Dynamic-Link Library Search Order [1] says... "If a DLL >> >>> with the >> >>> >>>>>> same module name >> >>> >>>>>> is already loaded in memory, the system uses the loaded >> >>> DLL, no matter >> >>> >>>>>> which directory it is in. >> >>> >>>>>> The system does not search for the DLL." >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> So maybe before calling any of YOUR.DLL, >> >>> >>>>>> do a SetDllDirectory followed by a LoadLibrary(OTHER.DLL) >> >>> >>>>>> and later when you call into YOUR.DLL, >> >>> >>>>>> OTHER.DLL is already loaded. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Yes, this might work but is rather contrived. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Otherwise it would seems(?) your options are either >> Manifests >> >>> >>>>>> or Dynamic-Link Library Redirection, both done outside of >> >>> Pharo. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> What if neither YOUR.DLL nor OTHER.DLL are under my control? >> >>> The only thing I know is where the .dll and the corresponding .lib >> >>> + .h are. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Thanks for your interest >> >>> >>>>> Raffaello >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> But I'll try whether SetDllDirectory also affects >> >>> load-time searches. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Anyway, I hope future versions of the UFFI to offer >> >>> setting the >> >>> >>>>>> search paths more easily. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Greetings >> >>> >>>>>> Raffaello >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >>

March 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Specifying library dependencies in UFFI

by Pierce Ng

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:31:45AM +0100, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: > Suppose my code directly accesses "my.dll" which, in turn, depends > on "her.dll" which my code does not need directly and suppose that > library is located in folder "<path-to-her-folder>". How can I > enforce the UFFI to perform the search there? On Linux, I use a shell script "gopharo" to run the VM: #!/bin/sh PHAROVMPATH=$(dirname `readlink -f "$0"`) LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$PHAROVMPATH" exec "$PHAROVMPATH/pharo" $@ LD_LIBRARY_PATH is customizable. In my case, I place 3rd party files like libsqlite.so, libunqlite.so together with the standard VM files. Pierce

March 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Specifying library dependencies in UFFI

by Dimitris Chloupis

A utility to view DLLs is this one http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/dll_export_viewer.html It helped a lot in my project. also C compilers have several checks for DLL loading Visual studio also has several tools for low level detection of memory if you are familiar with Assembly it has also disassembling tools. Anyway, your time, your project, your choice. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:20 PM <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch> wrote: > Hi Dimitris, > > I think I understand what you mean. > > You are probably saying that, when facing multiple libraries that need > to be glued together, it is far better to implement a C "gluing" library > and then targeting that one from the UFFI rather than trying to do the > gluing code using Smalltalk and the UFFI directly, right? > > I can only agree with you that, except for the most simplest cases, a > gluing C bridge library is far better and simpler to get right. > > Personally, I've got no problems in using the UFFI for now, except for C > varargs (the ... in a C function header), for invoking functions through > pointers rather than by name and for indirectly handling C++ exceptions. > For that I had to resort to a thin gluing C library written just for > that purpose. > > Greetings > Raffaello > > > > On 16/03/17 15:48, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > My point was that anything you do in Pharo will lower performance quite > > a bit, but it wont be noticable anyway unless its in a big loop or > > something. > > > > Second that Pharo cannot debug such issues which is a huge deal when you > > work with OS stuff and OS calls. > > > > You are far better doing this outside UFFI and straight inside a C IDE > > because you will have an army of tools that will make your life a ton > > easier. > > > > Hence why I talked about performance, C coding and Pharo crashes. > > > > In my case I had to write and test the code in C to port it to UFFI > > because it was impossible to resolve the bugs from inside Pharo. Also > > crashing Pharo all the time got really annoying and I managed to corrupt > > a couple of images too in the process. > > > > Of course debugging C code from a C IDE is quite similar to how you work > > with Pharo. > > > > I also got an experience with loading libraries because I worked with > > Shared memory mapped files which is the technology OS uses to load DLLs. > > Its really low level stuff that come directly from OS kernel. It was a > > ton of fun. > > > > Also C is easier because obviously there is a ton of docs and all you > > have to do is copy paste. In case of UFFI you have to first figure out > > the C code and then how to convert it to UFFI so its double the effort > > for little gain. Its much better thing to just wrap C code and minimize > > the usage of UFFI. > > > > The benefits of Pharo are lost anyway as soon as you drop so low level. > > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:05 PM <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> wrote: > > > > Indeed, experimenting using some combination of AddDllDirectory(), > > SetDllDirectory() and LoadLibraryEx() was in my plan for next week. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > On 16/03/17 11:59, Mark Bestley wrote: > > > Yes the calling process can alter where these indirect DLLs are > loaded > > > from and so should be able to be done in UFFI and directly from > > Smalltalk > > > > > > The OS will load the DLL specified then it runs DllMain and doing > that > > > causes the OS to load any DLLs that it calls > > > > > > MSDN https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7d83bc18.aspx says > > > > > > With both implicit and explicit linking, Windows first searches for > > > "known DLLs", such as Kernel32.dll and User32.dll. Windows then > > searches > > > for the DLLs in the following sequence: > > > The directory where the executable module for the current process > is > > > located. > > > The current directory. > > > The Windows system directory. The GetSystemDirectory function > > retrieves > > > the path of this directory. > > > The Windows directory. The GetWindowsDirectory function retrieves > the > > > path of this directory. > > > The directories listed in the PATH environment variable. > > > > > > > > > This can be changed using the call LoadLibraryEx instead of > > LoadLibrary > > > Flags can be set to change the directories used > > > > > > > > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms684179(v=vs.85).… > > > > > > > > > > > > Also see AddDllDirectory > > > > > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh310513(v=vs.85).… > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > On 15/03/2017 17:22, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: > > >> Hi Dimitris, > > >> > > >> I don't get your point about proper C coding, C performance or > Pharo > > >> crashes. It is not the focus of this thread. > > >> > > >> How dependencies between libraries are resolved at load-time is > > dictated > > >> by the OS. If the OS offers a working mechanism to specify > > folders that > > >> the OS uses to search for libraries at load-time, well, I think > that > > >> Pharo, hence the UFFI, should offer it as well and in a more > > fashionable > > >> format. > > >> UFFI is quite elegant in many respects but I wouldn't call it a > > >> minimalist design (zero hand holding, if I understand you > correctly). > > >> But I'm happy the extra elegance is there because it makes life > more > > >> comfortable. > > >> > > >> Again, I still have to experiment with SetDllDirectory() in the > > case of > > >> Windows, so I'm not in a position to say something authoritative > yet. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2017-03-15 17:41, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > >>> Please note the moment you use a FFI of any language you step to > a C > > >>> territory. VMs tend not to touch the code because the code is > > already > > >>> in machine code format. > > >>> > > >>> There is zero reason for UFFI to worry about the dependencies of > a > > >>> library loaded, this must happen at the library level that UFFI > does > > >>> not focus on. > > >>> > > >>> What you describe here is standard practice because the vast > > majority > > >>> of libraries depend on other libraries. In the end UFFI or any > > FFI in > > >>> any language is not there to replace proper C coding but rather > to > > >>> allow you to utilize C libraries. You cannot hope to achieve > > >>> performance comparable to C if you try to use a language that is > > not C > > >>> to do standard things like dependency management. > > >>> > > >>> If the library fail to load it wont be because of UFFI it will be > > >>> because the library is buggy at handling its dependencies. That > > means > > >>> that the library will be buggy even if you use it from C > directly. > > >>> > > >>> Even you do not know what you doing at C level, you going to > crash > > >>> Pharo countless times anyway and the least of your worries will > be > > >>> handling dependencies which far more obvious than some other > nasty C > > >>> bugs. > > >>> > > >>> I think its a great idea that UFFI does zero hand holding. This > > way it > > >>> gives the clear message that if you do not understand C then you > > >>> should not be using the UFFI in the first place. > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:51 PM Esteban Lorenzano > > >>> <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com> > > >>> <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 15 Mar 2017, at 15:44, Raffaello Giulietti > > >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > On 2017-03-15 15:20, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 15:08, Raffaello Giulietti > > >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Hi Esteban, > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> I understand this is the current status of the UFFI, so > > I can > > >>> certainly use the workarounds discussed below. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> But I hope UFFI will soon offer a more "declarative" way > to > > >>> specify the search folders, kind of LD_LIBRARY_PATH > > mechanism but > > >>> in the UFFI. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> that will NOT solve the problem of dependencies of > libraries > > >>> indirectly references. > > >>> >> There is no way to do that (indirect reference solving) > on an > > >>> executing program that I know. > > >>> >> So is not âcurrent status of UFFIâ: it will never provide > > that. > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > >>> > Do you mean that SetDllDirectory() has no influence when > > invoked > > >>> between Pharo's start and the LoadLibrary() call done by the > > UFFI? > > >>> > > >>> I really have no idea. You can try to add it to your app. > > >>> > > >>> Esteban > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> >> All that, unless someone come and says: "look, Esteban is > > like > > >>> thisâ. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> I spent last three weeks (not full time of course) trying > > to do > > >>> exactly that for our current linux vm, to force libgit2 to > > use the > > >>> version of libssh2 we want (and not the version on system)â¦ > > and I > > >>> failed. I solved some cases, but not all. So at the end I > > opted to > > >>> change zeroconf to define LD_LIBRARY_PATH before calling > pharo. > > >>> Only way I found I can force the lookup paths. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> cheers, > > >>> >> Esteban > > >>> >> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Greetings > > >>> >>> Raffaello > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> On 2017-03-15 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > > >>> >>>> Hi, > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> UFFI cannot do what you want. > > >>> >>>> If I understand well, you have: > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> Pharo -> libA.dll -> libB.dll > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> Pharo does a LoadLibrary(libA.dll), but has no control > > on how > > >>> libA calls libBâ¦ and is not possible for us to influence it > more > > >>> than the predefined platform ways. > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> One posible workaround (just possible, no idea if it > will > > >>> work) is to perform a load of libB before is required by > libB. > > >>> Then hopefully the loader will understand is same library > > and will > > >>> answer same handler (but not sure, because if it > > discriminates by > > >>> pathâ¦ then youâre in the same position). Anyway, if you want > to > > >>> try it, it would be something like this: > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> DynamicLoader loadLibrary: 'path/to/libB.dllâ. > > >>> >>>> DynamicLoader loadLibrary: 'path/to/libA.dllâ. > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> then you can try to execute functions of libAâ¦ > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> cheers, > > >>> >>>> Esteban > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 14:32, Raffaello Giulietti > > >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> On 2017-03-15 13:51, Ben Coman wrote: > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Raffaello Giulietti > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> Hi Ben, > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> my understanding is that SetDllDirectory only > > affects the > > >>> search > > >>> >>>>>> path of libraries that are loaded at *run-time* with > > >>> LoadLibrary. > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> What I'm asking for is a mechanism that works at > > >>> *load-time*, when a > > >>> >>>>>> library I'm accessing directly depends on another one > > >>> which I'm not > > >>> >>>>>> targeting directly. > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> I don't quite follow. I'm not intimate with Windows > > >>> dynamic loading, so > > >>> >>>>>> these questions are an opportunity for me to learn... > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> You can't mean when Pharo loads, because it wouldn't > know > > >>> of OTHER.DLL ? > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> Do you mean that LoadLibrary is not called explicitly > by > > >>> YOUR.DLL before > > >>> >>>>>> its uses the function from OTHER.DLL? > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> During the build of YOUR.DLL, you can specify that it > > should > > >>> depend on OTHER.LIB (kind of binary which lists function > headers > > >>> and static data declarations for OTHER.DLL). Linking > > resolution is > > >>> then done at load-time of YOUR.DLL, not by invoking > > >>> LoadLibrary("OTHER.DLL"). > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> When YOUR.DLL is loaded by UFFI at run-time (here by > means > > >>> of LoadLibrary(), I guess), Windows (not the UFFI) also > attempts > > >>> to load OTHER.DLL because of the linking information gathered > > >>> during the build. Notice that the linking information does > *not* > > >>> include a specific path for OTHER.DLL. > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> (You don't have to mention standard *.LIBs like > > Kernel32.lib > > >>> because they are included by default. But of course, Windows > > knows > > >>> where to find the corresponding .dll.) > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> OTHER.DLL is searched using the strategy described in > the > > >>> MSDN page you mention. My expectation is/was that UFFI > > has/had an > > >>> API for specifying the search paths where to find OTHER.DLL > in a > > >>> platform-independent way. In other words, I would expect the > > UFFI > > >>> to do the call of SetDllDirectory() or whatever is needed on > > >>> Windows for me or to use other mechanisms on other platforms. > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> Do you mean you link OTHER.DLL to YOUR.DLL at compile > > time? > > >>> >>>>>> But still, YOUR.DLL it not loaded until called via > Pharo > > >>> FFI, so neither > > >>> >>>>>> is OTHER.DLL, > > >>> >>>>>> and Dynamic-Link Library Search Order [1] says... "If > > a DLL > > >>> with the > > >>> >>>>>> same module name > > >>> >>>>>> is already loaded in memory, the system uses the > loaded > > >>> DLL, no matter > > >>> >>>>>> which directory it is in. > > >>> >>>>>> The system does not search for the DLL." > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> So maybe before calling any of YOUR.DLL, > > >>> >>>>>> do a SetDllDirectory followed by a > LoadLibrary(OTHER.DLL) > > >>> >>>>>> and later when you call into YOUR.DLL, > > >>> >>>>>> OTHER.DLL is already loaded. > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> Yes, this might work but is rather contrived. > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> Otherwise it would seems(?) your options are either > > Manifests > > >>> >>>>>> or Dynamic-Link Library Redirection, both done > outside of > > >>> Pharo. > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> What if neither YOUR.DLL nor OTHER.DLL are under my > > control? > > >>> The only thing I know is where the .dll and the > > corresponding .lib > > >>> + .h are. > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> Thanks for your interest > > >>> >>>>> Raffaello > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> But I'll try whether SetDllDirectory also affects > > >>> load-time searches. > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> Anyway, I hope future versions of the UFFI to offer > > >>> setting the > > >>> >>>>>> search paths more easily. > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> Greetings > > >>> >>>>>> Raffaello > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

March 16, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] doesNotUnderstand: infinit loop

by Esteban A. Maringolo

I got used to save the image before debugging a single test and/or recover lost changes. But this is certainly hard if you want to do TDD :) Is this related with the debugger UI (GT) or with the underlying frameworks? Regards, -- Esteban El mar. 16, 2017 12:37 PM, "Denis Kudriashov" <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > That is sad. It works from workspace but not during debugging tests. > > 2017-03-16 15:11 GMT+01:00 Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com>: > >> Was this fixed? >> >> I'm debugging unit tests and I'm getting an infinte loop everytime a >> MNU is triggered. >> >

March 16, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Specifying library dependencies in UFFI

by Mark Bestley

In general I would agree do in C or C++ to cut down the interface and pass as little data between the two languages as possible. So hiding of C++ objects and exceptions and the others listed in you last paragraph is reasonable However the OS functions for loading need to be controlled outside the function called and so control should be in the UFFI layer. Also calling DLLs from Pharo will have a different environment from DLL called from a C main() call so can't be debugged in the C IDE. (My experience in this comes from DLLs called from Excel so a similar case, you end up running the excel executable under the C debugger and set C breakpoints and even then that differs from production use) Mark On 16/03/2017 16:19, raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch wrote: > Hi Dimitris, > > I think I understand what you mean. > > You are probably saying that, when facing multiple libraries that need > to be glued together, it is far better to implement a C "gluing" library > and then targeting that one from the UFFI rather than trying to do the > gluing code using Smalltalk and the UFFI directly, right? > > I can only agree with you that, except for the most simplest cases, a > gluing C bridge library is far better and simpler to get right. > > Personally, I've got no problems in using the UFFI for now, except for C > varargs (the ... in a C function header), for invoking functions through > pointers rather than by name and for indirectly handling C++ exceptions. > For that I had to resort to a thin gluing C library written just for > that purpose. > > Greetings > Raffaello > > > > On 16/03/17 15:48, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: >> My point was that anything you do in Pharo will lower performance quite >> a bit, but it wont be noticable anyway unless its in a big loop or >> something. >> >> Second that Pharo cannot debug such issues which is a huge deal when you >> work with OS stuff and OS calls. >> >> You are far better doing this outside UFFI and straight inside a C IDE >> because you will have an army of tools that will make your life a ton >> easier. >> >> Hence why I talked about performance, C coding and Pharo crashes. >> >> In my case I had to write and test the code in C to port it to UFFI >> because it was impossible to resolve the bugs from inside Pharo. Also >> crashing Pharo all the time got really annoying and I managed to corrupt >> a couple of images too in the process. >> >> Of course debugging C code from a C IDE is quite similar to how you work >> with Pharo. >> >> I also got an experience with loading libraries because I worked with >> Shared memory mapped files which is the technology OS uses to load DLLs. >> Its really low level stuff that come directly from OS kernel. It was a >> ton of fun. >> >> Also C is easier because obviously there is a ton of docs and all you >> have to do is copy paste. In case of UFFI you have to first figure out >> the C code and then how to convert it to UFFI so its double the effort >> for little gain. Its much better thing to just wrap C code and minimize >> the usage of UFFI. >> >> The benefits of Pharo are lost anyway as soon as you drop so low level. >> >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:05 PM <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> wrote: >> >> Indeed, experimenting using some combination of AddDllDirectory(), >> SetDllDirectory() and LoadLibraryEx() was in my plan for next week. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> On 16/03/17 11:59, Mark Bestley wrote: >> > Yes the calling process can alter where these indirect DLLs are loaded >> > from and so should be able to be done in UFFI and directly from >> Smalltalk >> > >> > The OS will load the DLL specified then it runs DllMain and doing that >> > causes the OS to load any DLLs that it calls >> > >> > MSDN https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7d83bc18.aspx says >> > >> > With both implicit and explicit linking, Windows first searches for >> > "known DLLs", such as Kernel32.dll and User32.dll. Windows then >> searches >> > for the DLLs in the following sequence: >> > The directory where the executable module for the current process is >> > located. >> > The current directory. >> > The Windows system directory. The GetSystemDirectory function >> retrieves >> > the path of this directory. >> > The Windows directory. The GetWindowsDirectory function retrieves the >> > path of this directory. >> > The directories listed in the PATH environment variable. >> > >> > >> > This can be changed using the call LoadLibraryEx instead of >> LoadLibrary >> > Flags can be set to change the directories used >> > >> > >> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms684179(v=vs.85).… >> > >> > >> > >> > Also see AddDllDirectory >> > >> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh310513(v=vs.85).… >> > >> > >> > Mark >> > >> > On 15/03/2017 17:22, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: >> >> Hi Dimitris, >> >> >> >> I don't get your point about proper C coding, C performance or Pharo >> >> crashes. It is not the focus of this thread. >> >> >> >> How dependencies between libraries are resolved at load-time is >> dictated >> >> by the OS. If the OS offers a working mechanism to specify >> folders that >> >> the OS uses to search for libraries at load-time, well, I think that >> >> Pharo, hence the UFFI, should offer it as well and in a more >> fashionable >> >> format. >> >> UFFI is quite elegant in many respects but I wouldn't call it a >> >> minimalist design (zero hand holding, if I understand you correctly). >> >> But I'm happy the extra elegance is there because it makes life more >> >> comfortable. >> >> >> >> Again, I still have to experiment with SetDllDirectory() in the >> case of >> >> Windows, so I'm not in a position to say something authoritative yet. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2017-03-15 17:41, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: >> >>> Please note the moment you use a FFI of any language you step to a C >> >>> territory. VMs tend not to touch the code because the code is >> already >> >>> in machine code format. >> >>> >> >>> There is zero reason for UFFI to worry about the dependencies of a >> >>> library loaded, this must happen at the library level that UFFI does >> >>> not focus on. >> >>> >> >>> What you describe here is standard practice because the vast >> majority >> >>> of libraries depend on other libraries. In the end UFFI or any >> FFI in >> >>> any language is not there to replace proper C coding but rather to >> >>> allow you to utilize C libraries. You cannot hope to achieve >> >>> performance comparable to C if you try to use a language that is >> not C >> >>> to do standard things like dependency management. >> >>> >> >>> If the library fail to load it wont be because of UFFI it will be >> >>> because the library is buggy at handling its dependencies. That >> means >> >>> that the library will be buggy even if you use it from C directly. >> >>> >> >>> Even you do not know what you doing at C level, you going to crash >> >>> Pharo countless times anyway and the least of your worries will be >> >>> handling dependencies which far more obvious than some other nasty C >> >>> bugs. >> >>> >> >>> I think its a great idea that UFFI does zero hand holding. This >> way it >> >>> gives the clear message that if you do not understand C then you >> >>> should not be using the UFFI in the first place. >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:51 PM Esteban Lorenzano >> >>> <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com> >> >>> <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > On 15 Mar 2017, at 15:44, Raffaello Giulietti >> >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > On 2017-03-15 15:20, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 15:08, Raffaello Giulietti >> >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Esteban, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> I understand this is the current status of the UFFI, so >> I can >> >>> certainly use the workarounds discussed below. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> But I hope UFFI will soon offer a more "declarative" way to >> >>> specify the search folders, kind of LD_LIBRARY_PATH >> mechanism but >> >>> in the UFFI. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> that will NOT solve the problem of dependencies of libraries >> >>> indirectly references. >> >>> >> There is no way to do that (indirect reference solving) on an >> >>> executing program that I know. >> >>> >> So is not âcurrent status of UFFIâ: it will never provide >> that. >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > Do you mean that SetDllDirectory() has no influence when >> invoked >> >>> between Pharo's start and the LoadLibrary() call done by the >> UFFI? >> >>> >> >>> I really have no idea. You can try to add it to your app. >> >>> >> >>> Esteban >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> All that, unless someone come and says: "look, Esteban is >> like >> >>> thisâ. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I spent last three weeks (not full time of course) trying >> to do >> >>> exactly that for our current linux vm, to force libgit2 to >> use the >> >>> version of libssh2 we want (and not the version on system)â¦ >> and I >> >>> failed. I solved some cases, but not all. So at the end I >> opted to >> >>> change zeroconf to define LD_LIBRARY_PATH before calling pharo. >> >>> Only way I found I can force the lookup paths. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> cheers, >> >>> >> Esteban >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Greetings >> >>> >>> Raffaello >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On 2017-03-15 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> >>> >>>> Hi, >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> UFFI cannot do what you want. >> >>> >>>> If I understand well, you have: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Pharo -> libA.dll -> libB.dll >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Pharo does a LoadLibrary(libA.dll), but has no control >> on how >> >>> libA calls libBâ¦ and is not possible for us to influence it more >> >>> than the predefined platform ways. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> One posible workaround (just possible, no idea if it will >> >>> work) is to perform a load of libB before is required by libB. >> >>> Then hopefully the loader will understand is same library >> and will >> >>> answer same handler (but not sure, because if it >> discriminates by >> >>> pathâ¦ then youâre in the same position). Anyway, if you want to >> >>> try it, it would be something like this: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> DynamicLoader loadLibrary: 'path/to/libB.dllâ. >> >>> >>>> DynamicLoader loadLibrary: 'path/to/libA.dllâ. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> then you can try to execute functions of libAâ¦ >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> cheers, >> >>> >>>> Esteban >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 14:32, Raffaello Giulietti >> >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> On 2017-03-15 13:51, Ben Coman wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Raffaello Giulietti >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> >> >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch >> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Hi Ben, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> my understanding is that SetDllDirectory only >> affects the >> >>> search >> >>> >>>>>> path of libraries that are loaded at *run-time* with >> >>> LoadLibrary. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> What I'm asking for is a mechanism that works at >> >>> *load-time*, when a >> >>> >>>>>> library I'm accessing directly depends on another one >> >>> which I'm not >> >>> >>>>>> targeting directly. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> I don't quite follow. I'm not intimate with Windows >> >>> dynamic loading, so >> >>> >>>>>> these questions are an opportunity for me to learn... >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> You can't mean when Pharo loads, because it wouldn't know >> >>> of OTHER.DLL ? >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Do you mean that LoadLibrary is not called explicitly by >> >>> YOUR.DLL before >> >>> >>>>>> its uses the function from OTHER.DLL? >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> During the build of YOUR.DLL, you can specify that it >> should >> >>> depend on OTHER.LIB (kind of binary which lists function headers >> >>> and static data declarations for OTHER.DLL). Linking >> resolution is >> >>> then done at load-time of YOUR.DLL, not by invoking >> >>> LoadLibrary("OTHER.DLL"). >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> When YOUR.DLL is loaded by UFFI at run-time (here by means >> >>> of LoadLibrary(), I guess), Windows (not the UFFI) also attempts >> >>> to load OTHER.DLL because of the linking information gathered >> >>> during the build. Notice that the linking information does *not* >> >>> include a specific path for OTHER.DLL. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> (You don't have to mention standard *.LIBs like >> Kernel32.lib >> >>> because they are included by default. But of course, Windows >> knows >> >>> where to find the corresponding .dll.) >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> OTHER.DLL is searched using the strategy described in the >> >>> MSDN page you mention. My expectation is/was that UFFI >> has/had an >> >>> API for specifying the search paths where to find OTHER.DLL in a >> >>> platform-independent way. In other words, I would expect the >> UFFI >> >>> to do the call of SetDllDirectory() or whatever is needed on >> >>> Windows for me or to use other mechanisms on other platforms. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Do you mean you link OTHER.DLL to YOUR.DLL at compile >> time? >> >>> >>>>>> But still, YOUR.DLL it not loaded until called via Pharo >> >>> FFI, so neither >> >>> >>>>>> is OTHER.DLL, >> >>> >>>>>> and Dynamic-Link Library Search Order [1] says... "If >> a DLL >> >>> with the >> >>> >>>>>> same module name >> >>> >>>>>> is already loaded in memory, the system uses the loaded >> >>> DLL, no matter >> >>> >>>>>> which directory it is in. >> >>> >>>>>> The system does not search for the DLL." >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> So maybe before calling any of YOUR.DLL, >> >>> >>>>>> do a SetDllDirectory followed by a LoadLibrary(OTHER.DLL) >> >>> >>>>>> and later when you call into YOUR.DLL, >> >>> >>>>>> OTHER.DLL is already loaded. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Yes, this might work but is rather contrived. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Otherwise it would seems(?) your options are either >> Manifests >> >>> >>>>>> or Dynamic-Link Library Redirection, both done outside of >> >>> Pharo. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> What if neither YOUR.DLL nor OTHER.DLL are under my >> control? >> >>> The only thing I know is where the .dll and the >> corresponding .lib >> >>> + .h are. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Thanks for your interest >> >>> >>>>> Raffaello >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> But I'll try whether SetDllDirectory also affects >> >>> load-time searches. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Anyway, I hope future versions of the UFFI to offer >> >>> setting the >> >>> >>>>>> search paths more easily. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Greetings >> >>> >>>>>> Raffaello >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > -- Mark

March 16, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Specifying library dependencies in UFFI

by raffaello.giulietti＠lifeware.ch

Hi Dimitris, I think I understand what you mean. You are probably saying that, when facing multiple libraries that need to be glued together, it is far better to implement a C "gluing" library and then targeting that one from the UFFI rather than trying to do the gluing code using Smalltalk and the UFFI directly, right? I can only agree with you that, except for the most simplest cases, a gluing C bridge library is far better and simpler to get right. Personally, I've got no problems in using the UFFI for now, except for C varargs (the ... in a C function header), for invoking functions through pointers rather than by name and for indirectly handling C++ exceptions. For that I had to resort to a thin gluing C library written just for that purpose. Greetings Raffaello On 16/03/17 15:48, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > My point was that anything you do in Pharo will lower performance quite > a bit, but it wont be noticable anyway unless its in a big loop or > something. > > Second that Pharo cannot debug such issues which is a huge deal when you > work with OS stuff and OS calls. > > You are far better doing this outside UFFI and straight inside a C IDE > because you will have an army of tools that will make your life a ton > easier. > > Hence why I talked about performance, C coding and Pharo crashes. > > In my case I had to write and test the code in C to port it to UFFI > because it was impossible to resolve the bugs from inside Pharo. Also > crashing Pharo all the time got really annoying and I managed to corrupt > a couple of images too in the process. > > Of course debugging C code from a C IDE is quite similar to how you work > with Pharo. > > I also got an experience with loading libraries because I worked with > Shared memory mapped files which is the technology OS uses to load DLLs. > Its really low level stuff that come directly from OS kernel. It was a > ton of fun. > > Also C is easier because obviously there is a ton of docs and all you > have to do is copy paste. In case of UFFI you have to first figure out > the C code and then how to convert it to UFFI so its double the effort > for little gain. Its much better thing to just wrap C code and minimize > the usage of UFFI. > > The benefits of Pharo are lost anyway as soon as you drop so low level. > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:05 PM <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> wrote: > > Indeed, experimenting using some combination of AddDllDirectory(), > SetDllDirectory() and LoadLibraryEx() was in my plan for next week. > > Thanks > > > > On 16/03/17 11:59, Mark Bestley wrote: > > Yes the calling process can alter where these indirect DLLs are loaded > > from and so should be able to be done in UFFI and directly from > Smalltalk > > > > The OS will load the DLL specified then it runs DllMain and doing that > > causes the OS to load any DLLs that it calls > > > > MSDN https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7d83bc18.aspx says > > > > With both implicit and explicit linking, Windows first searches for > > "known DLLs", such as Kernel32.dll and User32.dll. Windows then > searches > > for the DLLs in the following sequence: > > The directory where the executable module for the current process is > > located. > > The current directory. > > The Windows system directory. The GetSystemDirectory function > retrieves > > the path of this directory. > > The Windows directory. The GetWindowsDirectory function retrieves the > > path of this directory. > > The directories listed in the PATH environment variable. > > > > > > This can be changed using the call LoadLibraryEx instead of > LoadLibrary > > Flags can be set to change the directories used > > > > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms684179(v=vs.85).… > > > > > > > > Also see AddDllDirectory > > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh310513(v=vs.85).… > > > > > > Mark > > > > On 15/03/2017 17:22, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: > >> Hi Dimitris, > >> > >> I don't get your point about proper C coding, C performance or Pharo > >> crashes. It is not the focus of this thread. > >> > >> How dependencies between libraries are resolved at load-time is > dictated > >> by the OS. If the OS offers a working mechanism to specify > folders that > >> the OS uses to search for libraries at load-time, well, I think that > >> Pharo, hence the UFFI, should offer it as well and in a more > fashionable > >> format. > >> UFFI is quite elegant in many respects but I wouldn't call it a > >> minimalist design (zero hand holding, if I understand you correctly). > >> But I'm happy the extra elegance is there because it makes life more > >> comfortable. > >> > >> Again, I still have to experiment with SetDllDirectory() in the > case of > >> Windows, so I'm not in a position to say something authoritative yet. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2017-03-15 17:41, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > >>> Please note the moment you use a FFI of any language you step to a C > >>> territory. VMs tend not to touch the code because the code is > already > >>> in machine code format. > >>> > >>> There is zero reason for UFFI to worry about the dependencies of a > >>> library loaded, this must happen at the library level that UFFI does > >>> not focus on. > >>> > >>> What you describe here is standard practice because the vast > majority > >>> of libraries depend on other libraries. In the end UFFI or any > FFI in > >>> any language is not there to replace proper C coding but rather to > >>> allow you to utilize C libraries. You cannot hope to achieve > >>> performance comparable to C if you try to use a language that is > not C > >>> to do standard things like dependency management. > >>> > >>> If the library fail to load it wont be because of UFFI it will be > >>> because the library is buggy at handling its dependencies. That > means > >>> that the library will be buggy even if you use it from C directly. > >>> > >>> Even you do not know what you doing at C level, you going to crash > >>> Pharo countless times anyway and the least of your worries will be > >>> handling dependencies which far more obvious than some other nasty C > >>> bugs. > >>> > >>> I think its a great idea that UFFI does zero hand holding. This > way it > >>> gives the clear message that if you do not understand C then you > >>> should not be using the UFFI in the first place. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:51 PM Esteban Lorenzano > >>> <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com> > >>> <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 15 Mar 2017, at 15:44, Raffaello Giulietti > >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > On 2017-03-15 15:20, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 15:08, Raffaello Giulietti > >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Hi Esteban, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I understand this is the current status of the UFFI, so > I can > >>> certainly use the workarounds discussed below. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> But I hope UFFI will soon offer a more "declarative" way to > >>> specify the search folders, kind of LD_LIBRARY_PATH > mechanism but > >>> in the UFFI. > >>> >> > >>> >> that will NOT solve the problem of dependencies of libraries > >>> indirectly references. > >>> >> There is no way to do that (indirect reference solving) on an > >>> executing program that I know. > >>> >> So is not âcurrent status of UFFIâ: it will never provide > that. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > Do you mean that SetDllDirectory() has no influence when > invoked > >>> between Pharo's start and the LoadLibrary() call done by the > UFFI? > >>> > >>> I really have no idea. You can try to add it to your app. > >>> > >>> Esteban > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> All that, unless someone come and says: "look, Esteban is > like > >>> thisâ. > >>> >> > >>> >> I spent last three weeks (not full time of course) trying > to do > >>> exactly that for our current linux vm, to force libgit2 to > use the > >>> version of libssh2 we want (and not the version on system)â¦ > and I > >>> failed. I solved some cases, but not all. So at the end I > opted to > >>> change zeroconf to define LD_LIBRARY_PATH before calling pharo. > >>> Only way I found I can force the lookup paths. > >>> >> > >>> >> cheers, > >>> >> Esteban > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Greetings > >>> >>> Raffaello > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On 2017-03-15 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > >>> >>>> Hi, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> UFFI cannot do what you want. > >>> >>>> If I understand well, you have: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Pharo -> libA.dll -> libB.dll > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Pharo does a LoadLibrary(libA.dll), but has no control > on how > >>> libA calls libBâ¦ and is not possible for us to influence it more > >>> than the predefined platform ways. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> One posible workaround (just possible, no idea if it will > >>> work) is to perform a load of libB before is required by libB. > >>> Then hopefully the loader will understand is same library > and will > >>> answer same handler (but not sure, because if it > discriminates by > >>> pathâ¦ then youâre in the same position). Anyway, if you want to > >>> try it, it would be something like this: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> DynamicLoader loadLibrary: 'path/to/libB.dllâ. > >>> >>>> DynamicLoader loadLibrary: 'path/to/libA.dllâ. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> then you can try to execute functions of libAâ¦ > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> cheers, > >>> >>>> Esteban > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 14:32, Raffaello Giulietti > >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On 2017-03-15 13:51, Ben Coman wrote: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Raffaello Giulietti > >>> >>>>>> > >>> <raffaello.giulietti(a)lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch> > >>> <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch > <mailto:raffaello.giulietti@lifeware.ch>>>> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Hi Ben, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> my understanding is that SetDllDirectory only > affects the > >>> search > >>> >>>>>> path of libraries that are loaded at *run-time* with > >>> LoadLibrary. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> What I'm asking for is a mechanism that works at > >>> *load-time*, when a > >>> >>>>>> library I'm accessing directly depends on another one > >>> which I'm not > >>> >>>>>> targeting directly. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> I don't quite follow. I'm not intimate with Windows > >>> dynamic loading, so > >>> >>>>>> these questions are an opportunity for me to learn... > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> You can't mean when Pharo loads, because it wouldn't know > >>> of OTHER.DLL ? > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Do you mean that LoadLibrary is not called explicitly by > >>> YOUR.DLL before > >>> >>>>>> its uses the function from OTHER.DLL? > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> During the build of YOUR.DLL, you can specify that it > should > >>> depend on OTHER.LIB (kind of binary which lists function headers > >>> and static data declarations for OTHER.DLL). Linking > resolution is > >>> then done at load-time of YOUR.DLL, not by invoking > >>> LoadLibrary("OTHER.DLL"). > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> When YOUR.DLL is loaded by UFFI at run-time (here by means > >>> of LoadLibrary(), I guess), Windows (not the UFFI) also attempts > >>> to load OTHER.DLL because of the linking information gathered > >>> during the build. Notice that the linking information does *not* > >>> include a specific path for OTHER.DLL. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> (You don't have to mention standard *.LIBs like > Kernel32.lib > >>> because they are included by default. But of course, Windows > knows > >>> where to find the corresponding .dll.) > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> OTHER.DLL is searched using the strategy described in the > >>> MSDN page you mention. My expectation is/was that UFFI > has/had an > >>> API for specifying the search paths where to find OTHER.DLL in a > >>> platform-independent way. In other words, I would expect the > UFFI > >>> to do the call of SetDllDirectory() or whatever is needed on > >>> Windows for me or to use other mechanisms on other platforms. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Do you mean you link OTHER.DLL to YOUR.DLL at compile > time? > >>> >>>>>> But still, YOUR.DLL it not loaded until called via Pharo > >>> FFI, so neither > >>> >>>>>> is OTHER.DLL, > >>> >>>>>> and Dynamic-Link Library Search Order [1] says... "If > a DLL > >>> with the > >>> >>>>>> same module name > >>> >>>>>> is already loaded in memory, the system uses the loaded > >>> DLL, no matter > >>> >>>>>> which directory it is in. > >>> >>>>>> The system does not search for the DLL." > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> So maybe before calling any of YOUR.DLL, > >>> >>>>>> do a SetDllDirectory followed by a LoadLibrary(OTHER.DLL) > >>> >>>>>> and later when you call into YOUR.DLL, > >>> >>>>>> OTHER.DLL is already loaded. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Yes, this might work but is rather contrived. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Otherwise it would seems(?) your options are either > Manifests > >>> >>>>>> or Dynamic-Link Library Redirection, both done outside of > >>> Pharo. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> What if neither YOUR.DLL nor OTHER.DLL are under my > control? > >>> The only thing I know is where the .dll and the > corresponding .lib > >>> + .h are. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Thanks for your interest > >>> >>>>> Raffaello > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> But I'll try whether SetDllDirectory also affects > >>> load-time searches. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Anyway, I hope future versions of the UFFI to offer > >>> setting the > >>> >>>>>> search paths more easily. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Greetings > >>> >>>>>> Raffaello > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >

March 16, 2017