October 2018 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC

by Dimitris Chloupis

no I wont be introducing new syntax, I rather keep this 100% smalltalk.Also LowTalk uses GC which is a no go for me. this is the "syntax" I am considering so its fully compatible with Pharo ---------------------------------------------- SomeClass >> helloWorld: aMessage #(char* aMessage newMessage). printf := MagnetarImporter function: 'printf'. printf aMessage. newMessage := ' ...end of message'. prinf newMessage. #(struct result). #(int num1 num2 num3). #(struct end). #(result myresult). num1 := 1. num2 := 2. num3 := num1 + num2. #(myresult end). ^ #(myresult) SomeClass >> main #(include stdio) self helloWorld: 'Hello World !!!' ---------------------------------------- this will compile to C source code ---------------------------------------- #include <stdio.h> struct result { int num1; int num2; int num3; }; result helloworld(char* aMessage) { struct result myresult; printf(aMessage); char *newMessage = ' ...end of message.'; myresult.num1 = 1; myresult.num2 = 2; myresult.num3 = num1+num2; return myresult }; void main() { helloWorld('Hello World !!!'); } Of course this is a work in progress / first idea and if I can further streamline the syntax so much the better and of course the code could seperated to diffirent classes etc to follow the smalltalk way. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:20 PM Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > Perhaps a C-syntax front-end for Lowtalk would be interesting? > > http://forum.world.st/Re-ANN-Lowtalk-a-new-Smalltalk-dialect-that-could-eve… > > cheers -ben > > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 19:37, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> there will be no remap of variable names, this is a strict compiler if >> you can even call it a compiler. Your variable names will stay exactly the >> same in the C side , a concern here was that Pharo would not allow to have >> names like "my_personal_function". All the praise to Pharo it actually >> allows for such naming for methods. >> >> So no this is going to be a very stupid compiler, there will be minimum >> amount of magic involved if not any at all and what you read in Smalltalk >> will be compiled exactly the same in C. >> >> I am now playing with RBParser for handling the parsing of the smalltalk >> code and I am impressed how flexible and elegant it is. Kudos to the devs >> behind it. >> >> Here is the begining of Magnatar >> >> exp := (RBParser parseExpression: 'Morph call_my_function'). >> sel := exp selector asString. >> classname := exp receiver name asString. >> Transcript open;clear. >> Transcript show: classname ; show:'.' ; show:sel;show:'()';cr. >> >> Damn that was too easy :D >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:06 PM Thierry Goubier < >> thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 Ã 12:39, Dimitris Chloupis >>> <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >>> > >>> > About your last part on platforms, I will be providing a way to inline >>> C code so one can you use C macros to detect the platform and generate code >>> accordingly. Or this could happen via a pragma too, it should not be an >>> issue. This also a reason why I previously talked about an "in place" >>> annotation and why specially named variables was my first choice instead of >>> pragmas. I am also not a big fan of pragmas syntax which for me at least >>> deviates from standard smalltalk syntax style. But as I said I am not >>> against their usage at all. >>> > >>> > Generally because this is no an afternoon project obviously, I will be >>> relying on C code inling at first for special corner cases and then I will >>> implement them as annotations the more the project moves forward. >>> >>> Having a way to do the same as what asm inline is in gcc, but for >>> hand-written C inside your Smalltalk derivative is cool: remap >>> variable names, etc, so that your C generator handles all the >>> interface between the inlined C and the surrounding Smalltalk. >>> >>> Same if you also add platform-dependent customisation for generation. >>> >>> Thierry >>> >>> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:30 PM Dimitris Chloupis < >>> kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hello Allistair >>> >> >>> >> I have used Slang only once and it was generating code that was >>> indeed readbale but my aim is for more finer control over the output. Lets >>> say I want import a specific C header file or I want a string to map to >>> custom C type I created etc. So yes Slang is by no mean a bad tool at all >>> its just is not designed with making source output that is undetectable as >>> autogenerated by a human. But I will have to give it a more serious try >>> because it may be closer than I initially thought. >>> >> >>> >> I am not against the usage of pragmas, and indeed are an excellent >>> way to annotate stuff , my only concern is when I may want to annotate in >>> place for some weird reason , but that may be doable with pragmas as well >>> too. >>> >> >>> >> Smalltalk code that is 100% smalltalk should be able to execute , you >>> mention however the execution of external C functions , problem is that in >>> my case that code does not live in DLLs but in an executable so no I am not >>> amaing to that level of execution. >>> >> >>> >> Also I have an easier solution for this too, when I made the >>> CPPBridge, which is a Pharo library that allows the usage of C++ libraries >>> from Pharo, I used a shared memory bridge to communicate back to Pharo >>> giving the ability of both function calls and callbacks. If I really want >>> to capture execution I can do it like this which is the exact opposite of >>> what you do, instead of the VM capturing the executable it will be the >>> executable capturing the VM if that makes any sense. This makes things far >>> easier. As a matter of fact not only my CPPBridge does this it also allows >>> to extend the pharo image file because it uses memory mapped files for the >>> shared memory which like pharo image files are memory dumps. So there is a >>> lot potential in that department. >>> >> >>> >> However my main goal is to use Smalltalk code execution to make sure >>> the prototype works on a basic level, there will be a C cide in this >>> project obviously which will act like a runtime that will provide live >>> coding features. This is also a library I made in C that does this through >>> the usage of DLLs that rebuilds and reloads dynamically. >>> >> >>> >> So I dont really need the VM to execute my code to check that is >>> working cause the C compiler and the live coding runtime can handle this. I >>> could even hook in the Pharo debugger, I have done this with my Atlas >>> library that allows to use Python library from Pharo by sending the python >>> error back to Pharo debugger where it triggers an error and the debugger >>> pops to allow you to do your usual live coding magic and basically resends >>> the code back to python. Because of my C livecoding library I can do this >>> with C too. My only concern is how the C/C++ compiler reports errors >>> because obviously it known that it kinda sucks on this. But hey I cannot >>> make C better :D >>> >> >>> >> Generally speaking the tools I am making are not designed for general >>> consuption but designed to solve my own problems. Of course I like to share >>> them because there is always the chance for someone to find them useful as >>> it has happened with Atlas for example. Plus as happened with Atlas one can >>> take my code and adjust it to his or her personal needs. >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Dimitris, >>> >>> >>> >>> As someone currently learning to use Slang (i.e. not an expert), I've >>> >>> added my 2c below... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 11:06, Dimitris Chloupis < >>> kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Thierry you have done it !!! you just gave a very easy solution to >>> my problems. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Yeap Slang is quite close to what I am thinking, unfortunately >>> Clement told me to stay away from it because the code is ugly and specially >>> used for VM only. If I remember also correctly it does not generate >>> readable C code either. But the idea as a concept is very close to what I >>> imagine. >>> >>> >>> >>> I've found the C code produced to be quite readable, but that is >>> >>> probably influenced by the fact that I have read the slang first. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > As a matter of fact you mentioning Slang made I have an epiphany >>> that I dont have to create a new syntax at all, instead I could use >>> specific variables or methods to provide type annotation. Thus like Slang I >>> can use regular Smalltalk code that avoids changing types but without the >>> need for type inference (although I am not excluding this either). >>> >>> > >>> >>> > So yes I am definetly want to move to the direction that Slang >>> goes so I can fully utilise the Pharo IDE and minise code that I have to >>> write. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > So basically I am thinking write code as you always write in Pharo >>> and either >>> >>> > a) Have special dictionary variables in each method that provide >>> static type annotations for the arguments of the methods, its return type >>> and local variables >>> >>> >>> >>> Slang uses method pragmas to define the variables types. This seems >>> >>> to work quite well. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > b) Have special methods that provide such dictionaries seperately. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Or probably both. This way I can write 100% Smalltalk code and use >>> a very small compiler to read those dictionary variables for the type of >>> the variables and functions/structs (essentially a class will be output for >>> a C struct with pointers to functions for methods and variables for >>> instance variables). Why invent a whole new language when everything I need >>> already Pharo provides ? >>> >>> > I could also use special variable dictionaries for all sort of >>> things like generation of header files, generation of CMake files for >>> automatic building. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Also I like to use the way UFFI is doing C function signatures by >>> using symbol arrays. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > So thank you all for inspiration it looks like all I need is Pharo >>> AST methods (which I can from the AST packages) and SmaCC. >>> >>> > So yeap looks like Magnatar will be a new Slang afterall, I will >>> keep you posted. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Also this also opens the possibility of autowrapping the generated >>> c code back to Pharo through UFFI, so one can use C code as if its Pharo >>> code. I can leverage the TalkFFI project that does this already. Seems all >>> the pieces have fallen in their place. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Keep the suggestions and advice coming, you guys are inspirational >>> :D >>> >>> >>> >>> Do you intend that the Smalltalk code can be executed? This will >>> >>> likely increase the complexity quite a bit. In the VM simulation we >>> >>> end up creating a XSimulation subclass that provides the framework >>> for >>> >>> executing the smalltalk code, e.g simulating functions that are only >>> >>> in C. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is also the problem of platform differences. Slang doesn't >>> >>> really handle them well (pragmas can be used to indicated that >>> methods >>> >>> should only be compiled on certain platforms, and #ifdef type code >>> can >>> >>> be used, but it isn't enough). It would be nice to have a class that >>> >>> provides cross platform functionality, and then platform specific >>> >>> classes as required. >>> >>> >>> >>> HTH, >>> >>> Alistair >>> >>> >>> >>>

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC

by Ben Coman

Perhaps a C-syntax front-end for Lowtalk would be interesting? http://forum.world.st/Re-ANN-Lowtalk-a-new-Smalltalk-dialect-that-could-eve… cheers -ben On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 19:37, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > there will be no remap of variable names, this is a strict compiler if you > can even call it a compiler. Your variable names will stay exactly the same > in the C side , a concern here was that Pharo would not allow to have names > like "my_personal_function". All the praise to Pharo it actually allows for > such naming for methods. > > So no this is going to be a very stupid compiler, there will be minimum > amount of magic involved if not any at all and what you read in Smalltalk > will be compiled exactly the same in C. > > I am now playing with RBParser for handling the parsing of the smalltalk > code and I am impressed how flexible and elegant it is. Kudos to the devs > behind it. > > Here is the begining of Magnatar > > exp := (RBParser parseExpression: 'Morph call_my_function'). > sel := exp selector asString. > classname := exp receiver name asString. > Transcript open;clear. > Transcript show: classname ; show:'.' ; show:sel;show:'()';cr. > > Damn that was too easy :D > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:06 PM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 Ã 12:39, Dimitris Chloupis >> <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >> > >> > About your last part on platforms, I will be providing a way to inline >> C code so one can you use C macros to detect the platform and generate code >> accordingly. Or this could happen via a pragma too, it should not be an >> issue. This also a reason why I previously talked about an "in place" >> annotation and why specially named variables was my first choice instead of >> pragmas. I am also not a big fan of pragmas syntax which for me at least >> deviates from standard smalltalk syntax style. But as I said I am not >> against their usage at all. >> > >> > Generally because this is no an afternoon project obviously, I will be >> relying on C code inling at first for special corner cases and then I will >> implement them as annotations the more the project moves forward. >> >> Having a way to do the same as what asm inline is in gcc, but for >> hand-written C inside your Smalltalk derivative is cool: remap >> variable names, etc, so that your C generator handles all the >> interface between the inlined C and the surrounding Smalltalk. >> >> Same if you also add platform-dependent customisation for generation. >> >> Thierry >> >> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:30 PM Dimitris Chloupis < >> kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello Allistair >> >> >> >> I have used Slang only once and it was generating code that was indeed >> readbale but my aim is for more finer control over the output. Lets say I >> want import a specific C header file or I want a string to map to custom C >> type I created etc. So yes Slang is by no mean a bad tool at all its just >> is not designed with making source output that is undetectable as >> autogenerated by a human. But I will have to give it a more serious try >> because it may be closer than I initially thought. >> >> >> >> I am not against the usage of pragmas, and indeed are an excellent way >> to annotate stuff , my only concern is when I may want to annotate in place >> for some weird reason , but that may be doable with pragmas as well too. >> >> >> >> Smalltalk code that is 100% smalltalk should be able to execute , you >> mention however the execution of external C functions , problem is that in >> my case that code does not live in DLLs but in an executable so no I am not >> amaing to that level of execution. >> >> >> >> Also I have an easier solution for this too, when I made the >> CPPBridge, which is a Pharo library that allows the usage of C++ libraries >> from Pharo, I used a shared memory bridge to communicate back to Pharo >> giving the ability of both function calls and callbacks. If I really want >> to capture execution I can do it like this which is the exact opposite of >> what you do, instead of the VM capturing the executable it will be the >> executable capturing the VM if that makes any sense. This makes things far >> easier. As a matter of fact not only my CPPBridge does this it also allows >> to extend the pharo image file because it uses memory mapped files for the >> shared memory which like pharo image files are memory dumps. So there is a >> lot potential in that department. >> >> >> >> However my main goal is to use Smalltalk code execution to make sure >> the prototype works on a basic level, there will be a C cide in this >> project obviously which will act like a runtime that will provide live >> coding features. This is also a library I made in C that does this through >> the usage of DLLs that rebuilds and reloads dynamically. >> >> >> >> So I dont really need the VM to execute my code to check that is >> working cause the C compiler and the live coding runtime can handle this. I >> could even hook in the Pharo debugger, I have done this with my Atlas >> library that allows to use Python library from Pharo by sending the python >> error back to Pharo debugger where it triggers an error and the debugger >> pops to allow you to do your usual live coding magic and basically resends >> the code back to python. Because of my C livecoding library I can do this >> with C too. My only concern is how the C/C++ compiler reports errors >> because obviously it known that it kinda sucks on this. But hey I cannot >> make C better :D >> >> >> >> Generally speaking the tools I am making are not designed for general >> consuption but designed to solve my own problems. Of course I like to share >> them because there is always the chance for someone to find them useful as >> it has happened with Atlas for example. Plus as happened with Atlas one can >> take my code and adjust it to his or her personal needs. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Dimitris, >> >>> >> >>> As someone currently learning to use Slang (i.e. not an expert), I've >> >>> added my 2c below... >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 11:06, Dimitris Chloupis < >> kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > Thierry you have done it !!! you just gave a very easy solution to >> my problems. >> >>> > >> >>> > Yeap Slang is quite close to what I am thinking, unfortunately >> Clement told me to stay away from it because the code is ugly and specially >> used for VM only. If I remember also correctly it does not generate >> readable C code either. But the idea as a concept is very close to what I >> imagine. >> >>> >> >>> I've found the C code produced to be quite readable, but that is >> >>> probably influenced by the fact that I have read the slang first. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > As a matter of fact you mentioning Slang made I have an epiphany >> that I dont have to create a new syntax at all, instead I could use >> specific variables or methods to provide type annotation. Thus like Slang I >> can use regular Smalltalk code that avoids changing types but without the >> need for type inference (although I am not excluding this either). >> >>> > >> >>> > So yes I am definetly want to move to the direction that Slang goes >> so I can fully utilise the Pharo IDE and minise code that I have to write. >> >>> > >> >>> > So basically I am thinking write code as you always write in Pharo >> and either >> >>> > a) Have special dictionary variables in each method that provide >> static type annotations for the arguments of the methods, its return type >> and local variables >> >>> >> >>> Slang uses method pragmas to define the variables types. This seems >> >>> to work quite well. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > b) Have special methods that provide such dictionaries seperately. >> >>> > >> >>> > Or probably both. This way I can write 100% Smalltalk code and use >> a very small compiler to read those dictionary variables for the type of >> the variables and functions/structs (essentially a class will be output for >> a C struct with pointers to functions for methods and variables for >> instance variables). Why invent a whole new language when everything I need >> already Pharo provides ? >> >>> > I could also use special variable dictionaries for all sort of >> things like generation of header files, generation of CMake files for >> automatic building. >> >>> > >> >>> > Also I like to use the way UFFI is doing C function signatures by >> using symbol arrays. >> >>> > >> >>> > So thank you all for inspiration it looks like all I need is Pharo >> AST methods (which I can from the AST packages) and SmaCC. >> >>> > So yeap looks like Magnatar will be a new Slang afterall, I will >> keep you posted. >> >>> > >> >>> > Also this also opens the possibility of autowrapping the generated >> c code back to Pharo through UFFI, so one can use C code as if its Pharo >> code. I can leverage the TalkFFI project that does this already. Seems all >> the pieces have fallen in their place. >> >>> > >> >>> > Keep the suggestions and advice coming, you guys are inspirational >> :D >> >>> >> >>> Do you intend that the Smalltalk code can be executed? This will >> >>> likely increase the complexity quite a bit. In the VM simulation we >> >>> end up creating a XSimulation subclass that provides the framework for >> >>> executing the smalltalk code, e.g simulating functions that are only >> >>> in C. >> >>> >> >>> There is also the problem of platform differences. Slang doesn't >> >>> really handle them well (pragmas can be used to indicated that methods >> >>> should only be compiled on certain platforms, and #ifdef type code can >> >>> be used, but it isn't enough). It would be nice to have a class that >> >>> provides cross platform functionality, and then platform specific >> >>> classes as required. >> >>> >> >>> HTH, >> >>> Alistair >> >>> >> >>

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] compiling libraries for Pharo on macOS

by Ben Coman

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 18:33, Michel Onoff <michel.onoff(a)web.de> wrote: > Afaik, dlopen(3), which I presume UFFI uses internally to load (shared) > libraries on demand (I cannot imagine anything else), looks in > LD_LIBRARY_PATH (DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH on macOS), not in PATH. > > What is the strategy that UFFI internally uses in its own implementation > to search for a library? What if that library depends on other libraries > in turn? Where would these ones be searched for? > I'm not really familiar with the mechanism, but a quick trawl of the VM sources found these... [1] https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/blob/Cog/platforms/unix/v… [2] https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/blob/Cog/platforms/Mac%20… [3] https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/blob/Cog/platforms/iOS/vm… [4] https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/blob/Cog/platforms/iOS/vm… For [1] and [2], ioLoadModule() seems to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but [3] and [4] don't. IIUC, [2] is a deprecated version and [3] is the one you are concerned about. btw, If you want to discuss those files, consider cross posting to vm-dev. http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/vm-dev cheers -ben

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC

by Dimitris Chloupis

there will be no remap of variable names, this is a strict compiler if you can even call it a compiler. Your variable names will stay exactly the same in the C side , a concern here was that Pharo would not allow to have names like "my_personal_function". All the praise to Pharo it actually allows for such naming for methods. So no this is going to be a very stupid compiler, there will be minimum amount of magic involved if not any at all and what you read in Smalltalk will be compiled exactly the same in C. I am now playing with RBParser for handling the parsing of the smalltalk code and I am impressed how flexible and elegant it is. Kudos to the devs behind it. Here is the begining of Magnatar exp := (RBParser parseExpression: 'Morph call_my_function'). sel := exp selector asString. classname := exp receiver name asString. Transcript open;clear. Transcript show: classname ; show:'.' ; show:sel;show:'()';cr. Damn that was too easy :D On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:06 PM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 Ã 12:39, Dimitris Chloupis > <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > > > About your last part on platforms, I will be providing a way to inline C > code so one can you use C macros to detect the platform and generate code > accordingly. Or this could happen via a pragma too, it should not be an > issue. This also a reason why I previously talked about an "in place" > annotation and why specially named variables was my first choice instead of > pragmas. I am also not a big fan of pragmas syntax which for me at least > deviates from standard smalltalk syntax style. But as I said I am not > against their usage at all. > > > > Generally because this is no an afternoon project obviously, I will be > relying on C code inling at first for special corner cases and then I will > implement them as annotations the more the project moves forward. > > Having a way to do the same as what asm inline is in gcc, but for > hand-written C inside your Smalltalk derivative is cool: remap > variable names, etc, so that your C generator handles all the > interface between the inlined C and the surrounding Smalltalk. > > Same if you also add platform-dependent customisation for generation. > > Thierry > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:30 PM Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello Allistair > >> > >> I have used Slang only once and it was generating code that was indeed > readbale but my aim is for more finer control over the output. Lets say I > want import a specific C header file or I want a string to map to custom C > type I created etc. So yes Slang is by no mean a bad tool at all its just > is not designed with making source output that is undetectable as > autogenerated by a human. But I will have to give it a more serious try > because it may be closer than I initially thought. > >> > >> I am not against the usage of pragmas, and indeed are an excellent way > to annotate stuff , my only concern is when I may want to annotate in place > for some weird reason , but that may be doable with pragmas as well too. > >> > >> Smalltalk code that is 100% smalltalk should be able to execute , you > mention however the execution of external C functions , problem is that in > my case that code does not live in DLLs but in an executable so no I am not > amaing to that level of execution. > >> > >> Also I have an easier solution for this too, when I made the CPPBridge, > which is a Pharo library that allows the usage of C++ libraries from Pharo, > I used a shared memory bridge to communicate back to Pharo giving the > ability of both function calls and callbacks. If I really want to capture > execution I can do it like this which is the exact opposite of what you do, > instead of the VM capturing the executable it will be the executable > capturing the VM if that makes any sense. This makes things far easier. As > a matter of fact not only my CPPBridge does this it also allows to extend > the pharo image file because it uses memory mapped files for the shared > memory which like pharo image files are memory dumps. So there is a lot > potential in that department. > >> > >> However my main goal is to use Smalltalk code execution to make sure > the prototype works on a basic level, there will be a C cide in this > project obviously which will act like a runtime that will provide live > coding features. This is also a library I made in C that does this through > the usage of DLLs that rebuilds and reloads dynamically. > >> > >> So I dont really need the VM to execute my code to check that is > working cause the C compiler and the live coding runtime can handle this. I > could even hook in the Pharo debugger, I have done this with my Atlas > library that allows to use Python library from Pharo by sending the python > error back to Pharo debugger where it triggers an error and the debugger > pops to allow you to do your usual live coding magic and basically resends > the code back to python. Because of my C livecoding library I can do this > with C too. My only concern is how the C/C++ compiler reports errors > because obviously it known that it kinda sucks on this. But hey I cannot > make C better :D > >> > >> Generally speaking the tools I am making are not designed for general > consuption but designed to solve my own problems. Of course I like to share > them because there is always the chance for someone to find them useful as > it has happened with Atlas for example. Plus as happened with Atlas one can > take my code and adjust it to his or her personal needs. > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Dimitris, > >>> > >>> As someone currently learning to use Slang (i.e. not an expert), I've > >>> added my 2c below... > >>> > >>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 11:06, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Thierry you have done it !!! you just gave a very easy solution to > my problems. > >>> > > >>> > Yeap Slang is quite close to what I am thinking, unfortunately > Clement told me to stay away from it because the code is ugly and specially > used for VM only. If I remember also correctly it does not generate > readable C code either. But the idea as a concept is very close to what I > imagine. > >>> > >>> I've found the C code produced to be quite readable, but that is > >>> probably influenced by the fact that I have read the slang first. > >>> > >>> > >>> > As a matter of fact you mentioning Slang made I have an epiphany > that I dont have to create a new syntax at all, instead I could use > specific variables or methods to provide type annotation. Thus like Slang I > can use regular Smalltalk code that avoids changing types but without the > need for type inference (although I am not excluding this either). > >>> > > >>> > So yes I am definetly want to move to the direction that Slang goes > so I can fully utilise the Pharo IDE and minise code that I have to write. > >>> > > >>> > So basically I am thinking write code as you always write in Pharo > and either > >>> > a) Have special dictionary variables in each method that provide > static type annotations for the arguments of the methods, its return type > and local variables > >>> > >>> Slang uses method pragmas to define the variables types. This seems > >>> to work quite well. > >>> > >>> > >>> > b) Have special methods that provide such dictionaries seperately. > >>> > > >>> > Or probably both. This way I can write 100% Smalltalk code and use a > very small compiler to read those dictionary variables for the type of the > variables and functions/structs (essentially a class will be output for a C > struct with pointers to functions for methods and variables for instance > variables). Why invent a whole new language when everything I need already > Pharo provides ? > >>> > I could also use special variable dictionaries for all sort of > things like generation of header files, generation of CMake files for > automatic building. > >>> > > >>> > Also I like to use the way UFFI is doing C function signatures by > using symbol arrays. > >>> > > >>> > So thank you all for inspiration it looks like all I need is Pharo > AST methods (which I can from the AST packages) and SmaCC. > >>> > So yeap looks like Magnatar will be a new Slang afterall, I will > keep you posted. > >>> > > >>> > Also this also opens the possibility of autowrapping the generated c > code back to Pharo through UFFI, so one can use C code as if its Pharo > code. I can leverage the TalkFFI project that does this already. Seems all > the pieces have fallen in their place. > >>> > > >>> > Keep the suggestions and advice coming, you guys are inspirational :D > >>> > >>> Do you intend that the Smalltalk code can be executed? This will > >>> likely increase the complexity quite a bit. In the VM simulation we > >>> end up creating a XSimulation subclass that provides the framework for > >>> executing the smalltalk code, e.g simulating functions that are only > >>> in C. > >>> > >>> There is also the problem of platform differences. Slang doesn't > >>> really handle them well (pragmas can be used to indicated that methods > >>> should only be compiled on certain platforms, and #ifdef type code can > >>> be used, but it isn't enough). It would be nice to have a class that > >>> provides cross platform functionality, and then platform specific > >>> classes as required. > >>> > >>> HTH, > >>> Alistair > >>> > >

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Dictionary and Date as keys

by H. Hirzel

Maybe this happened with Squeak version 3.7? http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/1871 --Hannes On 10/17/18, Richard O'Keefe <raoknz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There is an elephant in the room. Historically and in Smalltalks such as > GNU Smalltalk, Smalltalk/X, my Smalltalk->C system, VisualAge Smalltalk, > and VisualWOrks, a Date is *not* a TimeSpan and is *not* associated with > a time zone or a zone offset. It's generally a direct subclass of > Magnitude. And this was originally true in Squeak as well. I just had a > look at SqueakV2.source to verify that. > > At some point subsequent to the 2.x series, Squeak made an incompatible > and to me incomprehensible change, with the result that "Date" in today's > Squeak and Pharo is incompatible with every other Smalltalk I've been able > to check: it does not mean the same thing any more and cannot be used the > same ways. > > The "classic" semantics is that a Date represents a cultural item, a day > in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, without reference to any particular > locality. For example, my most recent birthday was 2018-10-11, and it > would have been the same *date* but not the same *timespan* no matter > where I was in the world. The USA celebrated President's day on > 2018-02-19 this year, and it was the same *date* in every state, but > by no means the same *timespan*. > > Now, granting the utility of a class to represent the timespan associated > with a date in a given timezone, the obvious way to introduce it would > have been to introduce a new DateInZone class. Sadly, in Squeak the > Date class was changed incompatibly to take that role, with nothing left > to do what Date usefully did (and still does elsewhere). > > So now we have the problem that the original poster wanted to do > something perfectly sensible that works in nearly every other Smalltalk > and used to work in Squeak, but it doesn't work in Pharo. > > In this situation, I'd be strongly inclined to port say GNU Smalltalk's > Date class, renaming it to CompatibleDate, add a global variable > DateInZone, and add methods > CompatibleDate>>inZone: > DateInZone>>sansZone > > > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 09:44, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 16 Oct 2018, at 22:27, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Petr, >> > >> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 21:25, Petr Fischer via Pharo-users >> > <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> My problem - use Dates as Dictionary keys - shortly: >> >> >> >> d1 := Date today translateToUTC. >> >> d2 := Date today. >> >> >> >> d1 = d2. (true!) >> > >> > Which timezone are you in? >> > >> > CEDT (UTC+0200) gives false for this. >> > >> > Date is implemented primarily as a timespan, so days in different >> > timezones are considered different. If you do: >> > >> > | d1 d2 | >> > >> > d1 := Date today translateTo: (TimeZone abbreviated: 'UTC') offset. >> > d2 := Date today translateTo: (TimeZone abbreviated: 'EST') offset. >> > >> > { d1 = d2. d1 equals: d2 } >> > >> > >> > You can see the difference. >> > >> > Of course, this doesn't help with using Date as a key in a dictionary. >> > Probably your best option is to look at Sven's excellent ZTimezone >> > package (although I haven't tested it in this scenario). >> > >> > I can't find the repository right now (I think Sven moved it to >> github). Sven? >> >> It is called ZTimestamp and it lives in various places, for example: >> https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp >> >> > Cheers, >> > Alistair >> > >> > >> > >> >> d := Dictionary new. >> >> d at: d1 put: 1. >> >> >> >> d at: d1. (ok) >> >> d at: d2. (bad - key not found) >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> pf >> >> >> > >> >> >> >

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Dictionary and Date as keys

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 17 Oct 2018, at 13:07, Richard O'Keefe <raoknz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There is an elephant in the room. Historically and in Smalltalks such as > GNU Smalltalk, Smalltalk/X, my Smalltalk->C system, VisualAge Smalltalk, > and VisualWOrks, a Date is *not* a TimeSpan and is *not* associated with > a time zone or a zone offset. It's generally a direct subclass of > Magnitude. And this was originally true in Squeak as well. I just had a > look at SqueakV2.source to verify that. > > At some point subsequent to the 2.x series, Squeak made an incompatible > and to me incomprehensible change, with the result that "Date" in today's > Squeak and Pharo is incompatible with every other Smalltalk I've been able > to check: it does not mean the same thing any more and cannot be used the > same ways. > > The "classic" semantics is that a Date represents a cultural item, a day > in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, without reference to any particular > locality. For example, my most recent birthday was 2018-10-11, and it > would have been the same *date* but not the same *timespan* no matter > where I was in the world. The USA celebrated President's day on > 2018-02-19 this year, and it was the same *date* in every state, but > by no means the same *timespan*. > > Now, granting the utility of a class to represent the timespan associated > with a date in a given timezone, the obvious way to introduce it would > have been to introduce a new DateInZone class. Sadly, in Squeak the > Date class was changed incompatibly to take that role, with nothing left > to do what Date usefully did (and still does elsewhere). > > So now we have the problem that the original poster wanted to do > something perfectly sensible that works in nearly every other Smalltalk > and used to work in Squeak, but it doesn't work in Pharo. > > In this situation, I'd be strongly inclined to port say GNU Smalltalk's > Date class, renaming it to CompatibleDate, add a global variable > DateInZone, and add methods > CompatibleDate>>inZone: > DateInZone>>sansZone Date's current implementation and its implications has been the subject of many discussions before, it won't be the last. Both the simple, abstract calendar date as well as the more complex date in a timezone with a concrete timespan are useful. Using #translateToUTC and other techniques, you can make all your dates UTC based and be very close to the simple abstract calendar date. IMHO, what we need is to move away from TZ offsets towards real TZ identifiers (as in the Olson DB). So not +02:00 but Europe/Brussels. Next we need chronology objects with/without TZ info (or maybe the without case can just be UTC). But it is also very important to acknowledge the limitations of the objects without TZ info, because this fallback on current TZ is way too brittle. Your simple old school calendar Date cannot be asked for its start or stop or whether it includes a specific time, since all these need a TZ. The point about Date serialisation in the STON thread is illustrative here. The round trip of 1/1/2000 between my image, to some external representation without TZ, to your image will not be the same thing if we use different TZs. Given DST, the dates will even change by the season on the same machine. Not being aware of this complexity or hiding it will eventually lead to problems and bugs. > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 09:44, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > On 16 Oct 2018, at 22:27, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Petr, > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 21:25, Petr Fischer via Pharo-users > > <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> wrote: > >> > >> My problem - use Dates as Dictionary keys - shortly: > >> > >> d1 := Date today translateToUTC. > >> d2 := Date today. > >> > >> d1 = d2. (true!) > > > > Which timezone are you in? > > > > CEDT (UTC+0200) gives false for this. > > > > Date is implemented primarily as a timespan, so days in different > > timezones are considered different. If you do: > > > > | d1 d2 | > > > > d1 := Date today translateTo: (TimeZone abbreviated: 'UTC') offset. > > d2 := Date today translateTo: (TimeZone abbreviated: 'EST') offset. > > > > { d1 = d2. d1 equals: d2 } > > > > > > You can see the difference. > > > > Of course, this doesn't help with using Date as a key in a dictionary. > > Probably your best option is to look at Sven's excellent ZTimezone > > package (although I haven't tested it in this scenario). > > > > I can't find the repository right now (I think Sven moved it to github). Sven? > > It is called ZTimestamp and it lives in various places, for example: https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp > > > Cheers, > > Alistair > > > > > > > >> d := Dictionary new. > >> d at: d1 put: 1. > >> > >> d at: d1. (ok) > >> d at: d2. (bad - key not found) > >> > >> --- > >> > >> pf > >> > > > >

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] library to chain select:/collect:/ ... via cascade

by HernÃ¡n Morales Durand

Hi Peter, Have a look at: http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~zeroflag/Chain As an alternative you may try the Specification Pattern http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~MassimoNocentini/SpecificationPattern Cheers, HernÃ¡n El miÃ©., 17 oct. 2018 a las 4:14, Peter Uhnak (<i.uhnak(a)gmail.com>) escribiÃ³: > > Hi, > > is there some library that will allow me to chain select:/collect:/... via cascade? > > E.g. > > #(12 7 'a' nil #(0)) query reject: #isNil; select: #isNumber; collect: #squared; select: #even? > > The point is to not have to write billion parentheses when building a more complex query. > > I imagine this would be pretty easy to write, but figured I ask first. > > Thanks, > Peter

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Dictionary and Date as keys

by Richard O'Keefe

There is an elephant in the room. Historically and in Smalltalks such as GNU Smalltalk, Smalltalk/X, my Smalltalk->C system, VisualAge Smalltalk, and VisualWOrks, a Date is *not* a TimeSpan and is *not* associated with a time zone or a zone offset. It's generally a direct subclass of Magnitude. And this was originally true in Squeak as well. I just had a look at SqueakV2.source to verify that. At some point subsequent to the 2.x series, Squeak made an incompatible and to me incomprehensible change, with the result that "Date" in today's Squeak and Pharo is incompatible with every other Smalltalk I've been able to check: it does not mean the same thing any more and cannot be used the same ways. The "classic" semantics is that a Date represents a cultural item, a day in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, without reference to any particular locality. For example, my most recent birthday was 2018-10-11, and it would have been the same *date* but not the same *timespan* no matter where I was in the world. The USA celebrated President's day on 2018-02-19 this year, and it was the same *date* in every state, but by no means the same *timespan*. Now, granting the utility of a class to represent the timespan associated with a date in a given timezone, the obvious way to introduce it would have been to introduce a new DateInZone class. Sadly, in Squeak the Date class was changed incompatibly to take that role, with nothing left to do what Date usefully did (and still does elsewhere). So now we have the problem that the original poster wanted to do something perfectly sensible that works in nearly every other Smalltalk and used to work in Squeak, but it doesn't work in Pharo. In this situation, I'd be strongly inclined to port say GNU Smalltalk's Date class, renaming it to CompatibleDate, add a global variable DateInZone, and add methods CompatibleDate>>inZone: DateInZone>>sansZone On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 09:44, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > On 16 Oct 2018, at 22:27, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Petr, > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 21:25, Petr Fischer via Pharo-users > > <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> wrote: > >> > >> My problem - use Dates as Dictionary keys - shortly: > >> > >> d1 := Date today translateToUTC. > >> d2 := Date today. > >> > >> d1 = d2. (true!) > > > > Which timezone are you in? > > > > CEDT (UTC+0200) gives false for this. > > > > Date is implemented primarily as a timespan, so days in different > > timezones are considered different. If you do: > > > > | d1 d2 | > > > > d1 := Date today translateTo: (TimeZone abbreviated: 'UTC') offset. > > d2 := Date today translateTo: (TimeZone abbreviated: 'EST') offset. > > > > { d1 = d2. d1 equals: d2 } > > > > > > You can see the difference. > > > > Of course, this doesn't help with using Date as a key in a dictionary. > > Probably your best option is to look at Sven's excellent ZTimezone > > package (although I haven't tested it in this scenario). > > > > I can't find the repository right now (I think Sven moved it to > github). Sven? > > It is called ZTimestamp and it lives in various places, for example: > https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp > > > Cheers, > > Alistair > > > > > > > >> d := Dictionary new. > >> d at: d1 put: 1. > >> > >> d at: d1. (ok) > >> d at: d2. (bad - key not found) > >> > >> --- > >> > >> pf > >> > > > > >

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC

by Thierry Goubier

Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 Ã 12:39, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > About your last part on platforms, I will be providing a way to inline C code so one can you use C macros to detect the platform and generate code accordingly. Or this could happen via a pragma too, it should not be an issue. This also a reason why I previously talked about an "in place" annotation and why specially named variables was my first choice instead of pragmas. I am also not a big fan of pragmas syntax which for me at least deviates from standard smalltalk syntax style. But as I said I am not against their usage at all. > > Generally because this is no an afternoon project obviously, I will be relying on C code inling at first for special corner cases and then I will implement them as annotations the more the project moves forward. Having a way to do the same as what asm inline is in gcc, but for hand-written C inside your Smalltalk derivative is cool: remap variable names, etc, so that your C generator handles all the interface between the inlined C and the surrounding Smalltalk. Same if you also add platform-dependent customisation for generation. Thierry > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:30 PM Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello Allistair >> >> I have used Slang only once and it was generating code that was indeed readbale but my aim is for more finer control over the output. Lets say I want import a specific C header file or I want a string to map to custom C type I created etc. So yes Slang is by no mean a bad tool at all its just is not designed with making source output that is undetectable as autogenerated by a human. But I will have to give it a more serious try because it may be closer than I initially thought. >> >> I am not against the usage of pragmas, and indeed are an excellent way to annotate stuff , my only concern is when I may want to annotate in place for some weird reason , but that may be doable with pragmas as well too. >> >> Smalltalk code that is 100% smalltalk should be able to execute , you mention however the execution of external C functions , problem is that in my case that code does not live in DLLs but in an executable so no I am not amaing to that level of execution. >> >> Also I have an easier solution for this too, when I made the CPPBridge, which is a Pharo library that allows the usage of C++ libraries from Pharo, I used a shared memory bridge to communicate back to Pharo giving the ability of both function calls and callbacks. If I really want to capture execution I can do it like this which is the exact opposite of what you do, instead of the VM capturing the executable it will be the executable capturing the VM if that makes any sense. This makes things far easier. As a matter of fact not only my CPPBridge does this it also allows to extend the pharo image file because it uses memory mapped files for the shared memory which like pharo image files are memory dumps. So there is a lot potential in that department. >> >> However my main goal is to use Smalltalk code execution to make sure the prototype works on a basic level, there will be a C cide in this project obviously which will act like a runtime that will provide live coding features. This is also a library I made in C that does this through the usage of DLLs that rebuilds and reloads dynamically. >> >> So I dont really need the VM to execute my code to check that is working cause the C compiler and the live coding runtime can handle this. I could even hook in the Pharo debugger, I have done this with my Atlas library that allows to use Python library from Pharo by sending the python error back to Pharo debugger where it triggers an error and the debugger pops to allow you to do your usual live coding magic and basically resends the code back to python. Because of my C livecoding library I can do this with C too. My only concern is how the C/C++ compiler reports errors because obviously it known that it kinda sucks on this. But hey I cannot make C better :D >> >> Generally speaking the tools I am making are not designed for general consuption but designed to solve my own problems. Of course I like to share them because there is always the chance for someone to find them useful as it has happened with Atlas for example. Plus as happened with Atlas one can take my code and adjust it to his or her personal needs. >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dimitris, >>> >>> As someone currently learning to use Slang (i.e. not an expert), I've >>> added my 2c below... >>> >>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 11:06, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Thierry you have done it !!! you just gave a very easy solution to my problems. >>> > >>> > Yeap Slang is quite close to what I am thinking, unfortunately Clement told me to stay away from it because the code is ugly and specially used for VM only. If I remember also correctly it does not generate readable C code either. But the idea as a concept is very close to what I imagine. >>> >>> I've found the C code produced to be quite readable, but that is >>> probably influenced by the fact that I have read the slang first. >>> >>> >>> > As a matter of fact you mentioning Slang made I have an epiphany that I dont have to create a new syntax at all, instead I could use specific variables or methods to provide type annotation. Thus like Slang I can use regular Smalltalk code that avoids changing types but without the need for type inference (although I am not excluding this either). >>> > >>> > So yes I am definetly want to move to the direction that Slang goes so I can fully utilise the Pharo IDE and minise code that I have to write. >>> > >>> > So basically I am thinking write code as you always write in Pharo and either >>> > a) Have special dictionary variables in each method that provide static type annotations for the arguments of the methods, its return type and local variables >>> >>> Slang uses method pragmas to define the variables types. This seems >>> to work quite well. >>> >>> >>> > b) Have special methods that provide such dictionaries seperately. >>> > >>> > Or probably both. This way I can write 100% Smalltalk code and use a very small compiler to read those dictionary variables for the type of the variables and functions/structs (essentially a class will be output for a C struct with pointers to functions for methods and variables for instance variables). Why invent a whole new language when everything I need already Pharo provides ? >>> > I could also use special variable dictionaries for all sort of things like generation of header files, generation of CMake files for automatic building. >>> > >>> > Also I like to use the way UFFI is doing C function signatures by using symbol arrays. >>> > >>> > So thank you all for inspiration it looks like all I need is Pharo AST methods (which I can from the AST packages) and SmaCC. >>> > So yeap looks like Magnatar will be a new Slang afterall, I will keep you posted. >>> > >>> > Also this also opens the possibility of autowrapping the generated c code back to Pharo through UFFI, so one can use C code as if its Pharo code. I can leverage the TalkFFI project that does this already. Seems all the pieces have fallen in their place. >>> > >>> > Keep the suggestions and advice coming, you guys are inspirational :D >>> >>> Do you intend that the Smalltalk code can be executed? This will >>> likely increase the complexity quite a bit. In the VM simulation we >>> end up creating a XSimulation subclass that provides the framework for >>> executing the smalltalk code, e.g simulating functions that are only >>> in C. >>> >>> There is also the problem of platform differences. Slang doesn't >>> really handle them well (pragmas can be used to indicated that methods >>> should only be compiled on certain platforms, and #ifdef type code can >>> be used, but it isn't enough). It would be nice to have a class that >>> provides cross platform functionality, and then platform specific >>> classes as required. >>> >>> HTH, >>> Alistair >>>

Oct. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] compiling libraries for Pharo on macOS

by Dimitris Chloupis

yes exactly There is for Unix (which includes macos and linux) UnixDynamicLoader >>loadLibrary: filename flag: flag ^ self ffiCall: #(void *dlopen(const char *filename, int flag)) while for windows is WindowsDynamicLoader>>loadLibrary: lpFileName ^ self ffiCall: #(void *LoadLibrary(String lpFileName)) So UFFI apparently does not seem to deal with path checking at , instead it lets the DLL loading C functions to do their job. How they do this is completely dependant on the platform, or you can use my approach I linked earlier by including your library inside the Pharo folder relative to the folder of the VM. But if you want to do this the standard then yes you will have to do this the standard way ;) So look at how C does this and you will have your answer. This is a C question rather a Pharo questions, unless I am missing something here. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM Michel Onoff <michel.onoff(a)web.de> wrote: > Afaik, dlopen(3), which I presume UFFI uses internally to load (shared) > libraries on demand (I cannot imagine anything else), looks in > LD_LIBRARY_PATH (DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH on macOS), not in PATH. > > > > So let's focus on one of my question again, reworded here: > > What is the strategy that UFFI internally uses in its own implementation > to search for a library? What if that library depends on other libraries > in turn? Where would these ones be searched for? > > > > > > > > > On 2018-10-17 12:05, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > yeah I apologise for the wrong example , LibC utilises the > > enviroment/system variables. > > > > Generally speaking all OSes have a PATH variable that defines the places > > where common libraries and tools are to be found. If you are on windows > > you can type in the command prompt , "PATH", in Linux and MacOS is > > "$PATH" . You can add your path in Windows using the system variables > > dialog window, in MacOS and Linux it usually happens via .bash-config > > file that setups the path but I am not so sure. > > > > The easiest way is to do something like macModuleName does in the > > LGitLibrary class the code is > > > > macModuleName > > | pluginDir | > > pluginDir := Smalltalk vm binary parent / 'Plugins'. > > #('libgit2.dylib' 'libgit2.0.dylib') > > detect: [ :each | (pluginDir / each) exists ] > > ifFound: [ :libName | ^ libName ]. > > > > self error: 'Module not found.' > > > > Hope that helps > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:54 PM Michel Onoff <michel.onoff(a)web.de > > <mailto:michel.onoff@web.de>> wrote: > > > > Hi Dimitris, > > > > thanks for the long explanation. > > > > As you can see from my example, I build the library with the > > -undefined dynamic_lookup > > flag to clang, so this should be compatible with your (3) option if I > > understand you correctly. Compiling/linking this way should allow the > > use of dlopen(3) from UFFI during the execution of Pharo code, > exactly > > as I try to simulate with my small test programs. > > > > Pharo complains about not being able to load the module (the > library), > > even if it appears in the Pharo main folder. It does not report > whether > > it cannot find it or if it cannot bind it using dlopen(3). > > > > Moreover, it is unclear to me how Pharo interacts with > > DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH > > (on macOS) or LD_LIBRARY_PATH (on Linux) environment variables if > they > > are set. > > > > In other words, Where does it search for libraries? > > > > > > > > Anyway, I'll try your script on cmake. > > > > > > Regards > > MO > > > > > > > > > > for use with dlopen() > > > > On 2018-10-17 11:32, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > > I advice first of all the use of CMake , you can thank me later. > > > > > > CMake if you are not aware is the standard build system for C/C++ > > , it > > > makes it super easy to build and compile projects so you dont > > have to do > > > what you are doing, call the compiler and pass the inifite amount > of > > > compiler flags that it needs. > > > > > > To understand how to build a library you have to understand first > > what a > > > library is. > > > > > > Libraries used by Pharo are known as either Shared Libraries on > > Macos > > > (dylib) and Linux (so) but Dynamically Linked Libraries on Windows > > > (DLLs). They are executables designed to be called from another > > > executable (this includes another library as well). > > > > > > Those libraries operate in 3 modes > > > 1) Static linking > > > 2) semi dynamic linking > > > 3) dynamic linking > > > > > > (1) may come as suprise but yes those libraries can be linked to > the > > > executable and build inside the exrecutable. But in our case we > done > > > want that because it would mean to rebuild the VM. > > > (2) is not what we want either because eventhough it builds the > > library > > > independently generating the usual exetension files I mentioned > > above it > > > includes its symbole table in the executable so you wont have to > > do what > > > UFFI does, wrap or map your code to those library functions. The > > > equivelant for Pharo would mean that we would not need UFFI at > > all but > > > we do need to rebuld the VM to include ths symbol table. The > symbole > > > table basically includes the name of the functions, their > signatures > > > (type of arguments) and their corresponing adresses in memory > > needed to > > > access them. > > > > > > (3) is what UFFI does, in that cause the executable is not > > affected at > > > all so you dont need to to rebuild the vm. But you do need to > > know where > > > to find the library , to access its symbol table and make sure the > > > variables your executable uses match the type and signature in the > > > symbol table or else the executable wont able to locate and > > correctly > > > call these functions. Of course libraries can contain structs and > > global > > > variables as well but the concept is the same. Now this messy > > part is > > > handled by the UFFI although barely because it still needs from > > you to > > > provide the correct signature to the function. > > > > > > I am giving you the long version because you have to make sure > > you build > > > you library with (3) way and not (2). (1) can be easily avoid but > > it is > > > easy to mix (2) and (3). From there on its easy , locating the > > library > > > is provided as a string returned by a method , see how UFFI > utilises > > > LibC for example and from there on you just convert the > > signatures to > > > symbol arrays as described by the UFFI tutorials. > > > > > > For cmake you only need to use -> add_library(libraryname MODULE > > ${SRC} > > > ). You can find a CmakeList.txt file that I use here > > > https://gist.github.com/kilon/ff4b973bdeb3b0c0253ac373a4b2506a > > > > > > If you are wondering why its so big, its because the project I > link > > > against is huge and because I move the DLL to its build folder > > instead > > > of building it in the same folder as my source code. It CMake's > > why of > > > keeping things seperate and organised. Observe also that I use dll > > > exension for Windows and MacOS, The extensions plays no role so I > > > decided to go for the same extension to save time although > > usually its > > > preferable go for the standard extensions. > > > > > > Beware that if your library uses any external code even parts of > > the C > > > standard library those will have to be included , usually you > > need only > > > the header files, which is what SET INC is doing in my example, > > while > > > SET SRC includes only the library files. The inclusion of headers > is > > > super important because they are used to build the symbol table > > which is > > > the most important part of the library. Without a correctly build > > symbol > > > table the library is useless even when used from C/C++. > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:09 AM Michel Onoff > > <michel.onoff(a)web.de <mailto:michel.onoff@web.de> > > > <mailto:michel.onoff@web.de <mailto:michel.onoff@web.de>>> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I've made some attempts to use the Pharo FFI. I've gone > > through the > > > documentation [1] and tried some examples. > > > > > > While the documentation is quite clear about using external > > libraries > > > from Pharo, it lacks details on how to build own libraries to > > be used > > > from Pharo. > > > > > > Specifically, I'm trying to build on all supported platforms, > > namely > > > macOS, Windows and Linux. Currently I've got Linux and > > Windows under > > > control, but I cannot find a systematic way to build on macOS. > > > > > > Here's an example for a library that I can use from a small > test > > > program > > > but not from Pharo. Unfortunately, the diagnostic on Pharo is > not > > > detailed: it simply reports that it cannot load the module. > > > > > > > > > clang -I <include-path> -O3 -c <source-path> > > > ... > > > clang -dynamiclib <object-files> -o lib<name>.dylib -undefined > > > dynamic_lookup > > > > > > cp lib<name>.dylib <pharo-folder> > > > > > > > > > Is there good documentation about how to correctly build > > libraries so > > > that they can be used from Pharo? > > > > > > Alternatively, are there details on how Pharo FFI searches for > > > libraries > > > and links them in the Pharo process? > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > MO > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > [1] > https://files.pharo.org/books-pdfs/booklet-uFFI/UFFIDRAFT.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Oct. 17, 2018