Menu
▾
▴
squeak-vmdev
|
From: Dan I. <Da...@Sq...> - 2004-07-09 19:38:27
|
>Hi Dan-- > > I was doing other things yesterday, but I've just now started >regression-testing the simulator with a current system (3.7b.5969). I'm >loading VMMaker 3.7b5, etc. Hopefully this exercise will take only a few >minutes... (famous last words :). I intend to fix whatever brokenness I >encounter. Many thanks, Craig - As you will see, I just sent out a plea to the VM list as well. I'm CC'ing your response to that list as well, just so we don't get too much duplication. Perhaps you could CC your findings as well, whether good or not. As soon as something works right, I'll use that as my base and release the updated version with Ian's changes (much better controlled types) and my changes for 64 bits (now able to simulate through most of browser and text display). - Dan |
|
From: Dan I. <Da...@Sq...> - 2004-07-09 22:06:57
|
Hi, Ned - >On Friday 09 July 2004 12:33 pm, Dan Ingalls wrote: > >> I am now at the point where the 64-bit system works essentially as well as >> the 32-bit system in simulation, but that is not good enough. There are >> failures in both during morphic display, and these become fatal as they >> recur during attempts to put up error windows. > >Where are you seeing the problems? As I mentioned in that message, > Most of my current failures stem from BalloonEngine>>#primInitializeBuffer: However I think some other things may be failing that shouldn't. > > Moreover the latest system, >> even when running MVC, uses outline fonts, and there are failures in >> simulating these. > >It doesn't have to use outline fonts. Just remove the TTCFont and set the >system fonts to not use them. Yes, and that will be useful for people who want small MVC images, but my goal is no longer to avoid the problems but to deal with them. > > I need to know some very basic information, which has changed since I was >> last in control of the VM and simulation. >> >> 1. If everything worked right, is it the case that a current system should >> be able to simulate itself? What this means is that, provided that the >> plugin interface all works (and fails) properly, does all the necessary >> failure code exist such that the system will run completely and with >> integrity? If this is not so, then a further question is, apart from >> whatever fixes may be needed, how much new code would need to be written? > >Did you get the various simulation changes that I and others posted (I think I >mailed some to you)? I don't think they have gotten back into the image (but >they should), because they needed more testing. I thought that Tim had folded them into the VMMaker that he put out after that time. If he didn't, then that is unfortunate, and I'm not sure that they are still additive. This is why it would be so useful for me to get one consistently working system. I could then fairly easily force that latest release and the latest VMMaker into full compliance. [but the short answer to your question is no; do you know if they still work with the latest VMMaker?] > > 2. Assuming the answer to (1) is yes (and I sure hope it is), then the >> question is, does anyone anywhere have a recent version of Squeak that can >> simulate itself successfully in Morphic? This means displaying the mouse ( >> ideally), and a browser in which one can at least type 3+4, and print the >> value. If so, then this is all I need, as I can use that to find whatever >> problems there are in the latest 3.7 and VMMaker that I am using for the >> basis of the 64-bit work. > >I had this going at one time, as I recall. That's what Craig said ;-) ;-). Seriously, it would be *wonderful* if you could produce any one recent image that can simulate itself with integrity. > > I would be happy to supply further debugging info, and you can, of course, > > see it all for yourself if you have time to load up VMMaker in the latest > > 3.7, and try simulating itself. > >What are you loading besides the basic image? I run the latest 3.7 (5963). I am using VMM 37b2.1 plus the two-method fix needed to make it work since Tim's latest changes. That's where I test it. Then there's a raft of Ian's type reconciliation changes and my 64-bit changes, plus Anthony's Systemtracer2 and my subclass for 64-bit images as well. but all I need is a current 3.7 with a current VMMaker plus changes that make them able to simulate itself fully and, as I said, I'd settle for one that is not current from which I could repair the current one by side-by-side comparison. Thanks for responding, Ned - Dan |
|
From: Dan I. <Da...@Sq...> - 2004-07-09 22:35:54
|
Hi, Craig - > Anyway, we seem to be in decent shape; the things that don't work seem >to be things that have never worked. :) Happy hacking... I probably >wouldn't get to the open issues myself for some time. I'm currently >occupied with much weirder Squat stuff. But as usual, I would >reprioritize if someone paid me. :) I've done these changes myself. I'll look deeper as soon as I get a chance (out for a few hours). Maybe there was some stupid conflict with my other stuff. Thanks for your time and checking into all of this. - Dan |
|
From: Craig L. <cr...@ne...> - 2004-07-09 23:34:55
|
Oh, I also tried with a 3.6 "final" snapshot, also (3.6.5429). Apparently the VM stuff is already in there, so you don't have to load a separate VMMaker package. InterpreterSimulator>>primitiveGetAttribute, InterpreterSimulatorLSB>>halfWordAt: and SequenceableCollection>>copyGrownBy: are all missing, as with VMMaker 3.6g2 and 3.7a2. After patching those, simulating the 3.6.5429 snapshot in MVC yields the "primitiveBrowserPluginReady" problem I mentioned in my previous message. In Morphic, Interpreter>>primitiveTruncated barfs on a very large number. The display is painted under MVC, however, as with 3.7.5969. Normally these days I simulate 3.2 and 2.2 snapshots from a 3.2 snapshot, for the Squat project. -C -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist cr...@ne... www.netjam.org [|] Proceed for Truth! |
|
From: Craig L. <cr...@ne...> - 2004-07-10 00:05:05
|
> Maybe there was some... conflict with my other stuff. Yeah, it sounds like it. So, I have a 3.2 snapshot that can simulate itself. This same snapshot can simulate the 3.6 snapshot that OpenAugment has been using (probably due to some changes I made that I haven't isolated for release, sorry). I guess a pragmatic question is, are you interested in either of those combinations, or are they too old? :) (The oldest is the 3.2 snapshot, from 2002.) There may be the small issue of *my* VM changes for Squat getting in the way, but I could take those out pretty easily. I can't help mentioning that this is all great motivation for the Squat module system, which is what I'm trying to build with these things. :) -C p.s. Now *I'm* off for the evening, take care... -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist cr...@ne... www.netjam.org [|] Proceed for Truth! |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X