Hi Christoph, sorry for confusing you :)
On 04-Jan-24 12:34:04 AM, christoph.thiede@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
Hi Jaromir,
On 2024-01-03T22:36:17+00:00, mail@jaromir.net wrote:
Hi Christoph,
On 02-Jan-24 8:05:31 PM,
christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
wrote:
Hi Jaromir,
thanks for the clarification. If you don't mind I would still wait
for
a couple of days to see whether Eliot or Marcel or someone else who
are
longer aboard find anything against your change, but I have been convinced by you. :-) After that, we can merge your open test and eliminate the ifNil checks in the TraceDebugger and also in the penultimate line of Context>>#return:from:.
In general, some methods are "pure simulation" methods intended
to
mimic the VM behavior (#step etc) but nothing prevents one from
using
them for other purposes - like what #runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom: did:
to
just get rid of some contexts). Is it ok to do that? I tend to think it's not; it's confusing. That's why I made #stepToCalleeOrNil a private method because it's not a "true" simulation method but a
sort
of hybrid.
Yes, I think I understand your point here, the assumptions and use cases for #stepToCalleeOrNil are too special to expose it to
everyone.
Clients should mainly use #step, #stepToCallee, or maybe - with care
#runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom: to advance a context I think.
This is also why I checked Jakob's Git Browser and all tests seem
fine.
Wait, Squot is using code simulation?
I guess not, but as I noted, nothing prevents you from using
simulation
methods in the non-simulation code :) Plus, one might use simulation methods to prepare test scenarios... So I just ran the changes
through
Squot tests for good measure ;)
I still don't understand. :-) You ran the Squot test on the off chance that something in Squot or the Squot test uses code simulation?
Well, you can put it that way :) The more tests the better chance you catch something :D It happened a few times Pharo tests caught things Squeak didn't.
Or did you run the Squot tests inside the simulator? :D
Best, Christoph
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk
On 2024-01-02T11:25:57+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote:
Hi Christoph,
correct me if I'm wrong: with the corrected #step semantics (the #return:from: fix) one should no longer need to do things like:
self step ifNil: [^ self]
because #step should always return a context, even if attempting
to
step
to a nil context:
[] asContext step
In this case it correctly returns the #cannotReturn: context.
I've noticed these nil checks in Trace debugger's #doStepOver or #stepToHome.
I hope I haven't overlooked anything :)
Thanks for your thoughts, Jaromir
On 31-Dec-23 10:42:54 AM, "Jaromir Matas" <mail(a)jaromir.net>
wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about - the #return:from:
fix
changes slightly (perhaps it's better to say corrects) the
semantics
of
some stepping methods - #step and #stepToCallee, which allowed illegally stepping into a dead or nil context. They can no
longer be
used in the manner you showed. Another example was #runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom: - it used #stepToCallee this way so
as a
workaround I created the #stepToCalleeOrNil method and used in #runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom:
[ctxt isDead or: [topContext isNil]] whileFalse: [topContext := topContext stepToCalleeOrNil].
Theoretically there might be some external code (mis)using the incorrect stepping semantics. In Pharo's trunk they were mainly
tests
and #stepToHome but I haven't checked any external code. But all
their
tests are green with this change and I guess it's not
widespread.
This is also why I checked Jakob's Git Browser and all tests
seem
fine.
My opinion is to keep the correct simulation semantics and deal
with
potential consequences as/if they come. However I don't expect a
huge
impact as the change only affects border situations.
In general, some methods are "pure simulation" methods intended
to
mimic the VM behavior (#step etc) but nothing prevents one from
using
them for other purposes - like what #runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom:
did:
to
just get rid of some contexts). Is it ok to do that? I tend to
think
it's not; it's confusing. That's why I made #stepToCalleeOrNil a private method because it's not a "true" simulation method but a
sort
of hybrid.
What do you think?
Thanks for reviewing the fix! Best, Jaromir
On 30-Dec-23 11:07:54 PM,
christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
wrote:
Hi Jaromir,
I found a breaking change in the new behavior of Context>>#return:from: while using the TraceDebugger:
In the past we could say:
c:=[2+3]asContext. [c]whileNotNil:[c:=cstep].
With your change, the script runs forever because the last step
does
not answer nil as before but activates a new #cannotReturn:.
This behavior seems not be expected anywhere in the trunk (if
my
first
search was complete), and you are right that the new behavior
aligns
closer to the VM behavior. Still, the old code seemed to
explicitly
intend this - see the "newTop ifNotNil:" at the bottom of the
method.
I wonder whether we should keep this. For me it is not a big
deal;
I
can just change my script like this:
c:=[2+3]asContext. [csenderisNiland:[cwillReturn]]whileNotNil:[c:=cstep].
I just wonder whether this could a breaking or unintended
change
for
anything else. For [^2] ensure: [] it would not be a big deal,
we
could just change the check in question to (aSenderisDeador:[newTopnotNiland:[newTopisDead]])ifTrue:. I am tending against restoring the old behavior, but I am unsure.
What
is
your opinion on this?
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk
On 2023-12-30T21:13:37+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote:
> > nit: You mixed up the order of arguments for
#assert:equals:
> > oops, sorry :) It happens to me all the time; I've never
actually
> understood why the strange, almost Yodaesque, order... as if
you
asked > in English: > > "Make sure 18 is his age." > > Thanks, > Jaromir > > > On 30-Dec-23 9:13:56 PM, christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de > wrote: > > >nit: You mixed up the order of arguments for
#assert:equals:
(it is
> >assert: expected equals: actual) and could have used it in
the
final > >assert again, but that's clearly no reason to hold back a
useful
test. > >;-) Merged, thanks! :-) > > > >Best, > >Christoph > > > >--- > >Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk > >https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk > > > >On 2023-12-30T17:33:08+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote: > > > > > Hi Christoph, > > > > > > Thanks for merging the fixes; I've just sent another
test in
> > > KernelTests-jar.448 to complement them. > > > > > > Please take a look and if ok I'd appreciate it if you
could
merge it > >as > > > well. > > > > > > Best regards and Happy New Year to you too! > > > Jaromir > > > > > > > > > On 30-Dec-23 6:15:25 PM, > >christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Hi Jaromir, hi all, > > > > > > > >finally I have found the time to review these
suggestions.
> > > >Kernel-jar.1537, Kernel-jar.1538, and Kernel-jar.1539
look
excellent > >to > > > >me as well. Clear, straightforward, useful. :-) I have
merged
them > >into > > > >the trunk via Kernel-ct.1545. > > > > > > > >Regarding DebuggerTests>>test16HandleSimulationError, I
have
patched > >it > > > >via ToolsTests-ct.125. Nothing to rack your brains
over:
> >"thisContext > > > >pc: nil" just mimicks any kind of unhandled error
inside
the
> >simulator > > > >- since we now gently handle this via #cannotReturn:, I
just
> >replaced > > > >it with "thisContext pc: false". :-) Sorry for not
clarifying
that > > > >earlier and letting you speculate. > > > > > > > >Thanks for your work, and I already wish you a happy
new
year!
> > > > > > > >Best, > > > >Christoph > > > > > > > >--- > > > >Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk > > > >https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk > > > > > > > >On 2023-11-29T13:31:09+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Marcel, > > > > > > > > > > > [myself] whether the patch would have been
necessary
should the > > > > > #return:from: had been fixed then > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense, I just mixed it up with another issue :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29-Nov-23 1:51:21 PM, "Jaromir Matas" <mail(a)jaromir.net> > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks Marcel! This test somehow slipped my
attention
:)
> > > > > > > > > > > >The test can no longer work as is. It takes
advantage
of
the > > > >erroneous > > > > > >behavior of #return:from: in the sense that if you
simulate
> > > > > > > > > > > > thisContext pc: nil > > > > > > > > > > > >it'll happily return to a dead context (i.e. to
thisContext
from > > > >#pc: > > > > > >nil context) - which is not what the VM does during runtime. It > > > >should > > > > > >immediately raise an illegal return exception not
only
during > > > >runtime > > > > > >but also during simulation. > > > > > > > > > > > >The test mentions a patch for an infinite debugger
chain
> > > > > >(http://forum.world.st/I-broke-the-debugger-td5110752.html).
I
> > > >wonder > > > > > >whether the problem could have something to do with
this
> >simulation > > > >bug > > > > > >in return:from:; and a terrible idea occurred to me
whether
the > > > >patch > > > > > >would have been necessary should the #return:from:
had
been
> >fixed > > > >then > > > > > >;O > > > > > > > > > > > >We may potentially come up with more examples like
this,
even in > >the > > > > > >trunk, where the bug from #return:from: propagated
and
was
taken > > > > > >advantage of. I've found and fixed #runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom: > >but > > > >more > > > > > >can still be surviving undetected... > > > > > > > > > > > >I'd place the test into #expectedFailures for now
but
maybe
it's > > > >time > > > > > >to remove it; Christoph should decide :) > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks again, > > > > > >Jaromir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 29-Nov-23 10:28:38 AM, "Taeumel, Marcel via
Squeak-dev"
> > > > > ><squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Hi Jaromir -- > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Looks good. Still, what about that #test16HandleSimulationError > > > >now? > > > > > >>:-) It is failing with your changes ... how would
you
adapt it? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Best, > > > > > >>Marcel > > > > > >>>Am 28.11.2023 01:29:39 schrieb Jaromir Matas > ><mail(a)jaromir.net>: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>Hi Eliot, Marcel, all, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>I've sent a fix Kernel-jar.1539 to the Inbox that
solves
the > > > > > >>>remaining bit of the chain of bugs described in
the
previous > >post. > > > > > >>>All tests are green now and I think the root
cause
has
been > >found > > > >and > > > > > >>>fixed. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>In this last bit I've created a version of
stepToCallee
that > >would > > > > > >>>identify a potential illegal return to a nil
sender
and
avoid > >it. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>Now this example can be debugged without any
problems:
> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>[[self halt. ^ 1] on: BlockCannotReturn do:
#resume ]
fork > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>If you're happy with the solution in
Kernel-jar.1539,
> > > > > >>>Kernel-jar.1538, Kernel-jar.1537 and the test in > > > >KernelTests-jar.447, > > > > > >>>could you please double-check and merge, please?
(And
remove > > > > > >>>Kernel-mt.1534 and Tools-jar.1240 from the Inbox) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>Best, > > > > > >>>Jaromir > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>On 27-Nov-23 12:09:37 AM, "Jaromir Matas" <mail(a)jaromir.net> > > > >wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>>Hi Eliot, Christoph, all > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>It looks like there are some more skeletons in
the
closet :/ > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>If you run this example > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>[[self halt. ^ 1] on: BlockCannotReturn do: [:ex
|
ex
resume] > >] > > > >fork > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>and step over halt and then step over ^1 you get
a
> >nonsensical > > > >error > > > > > >>>>as a result of decoding nil as an instruction. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>It turns out that the root cause is in the
#return:from:
> >method: > > > >it > > > > > >>>>only checks whether aSender is dead but ignores
the
> >possibility > > > >that > > > > > >>>>aSender sender may be nil or dead in which cases
the
VM
also > > > > > >>>>responds with sending #cannotReturn, hence I
assume
the
> >simulator > > > > > >>>>should do the same. In addition, the VM nills
the pc
in
such > > > > > >>>>scenario, so I added the same functionality here
too:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>Context >> return: value from: aSender > > > > > >>>> "For simulation. Roll back self to aSender and
return
value > > > > > >>>>from it. Execute any unwind blocks on the way.
ASSUMES
> >aSender is > > > > > >>>>a sender of self" > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> | newTop | > > > > > >>>> newTop := aSender sender. > > > > > >>>> (aSender isDead or: [newTop isNil or: [newTop
isDead]])
> >ifTrue: > > > > > >>>> "<--------- this is extended ------" > > > > > >>>> [^self pc: nil; send: #cannotReturn: to: self
with:
> > > > > >>>>{value}]. "<------ pc: nil is added ----" > > > > > >>>> (self findNextUnwindContextUpTo: newTop)
ifNotNil:
> > > > > >>>> "Send #aboutToReturn:through: with nil as the
second
> > > > > >>>>argument to avoid this bug: > > > > > >>>> Cannot #stepOver '^2' in example '[^2] ensure:
[]'.
> > > > > >>>> See > > > > > > > > > > >
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2022-June/220975.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2022-June/220975.html"
> > > > > >>>> [^self send: #aboutToReturn:through: to: self
with:
{value. > > > > > >>>>nil}]. > > > > > >>>> self releaseTo: newTop. > > > > > >>>> newTop ifNotNil: [newTop push: value]. > > > > > >>>> ^newTop > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>In order for this to work #cannotReturn: has to
be
modified > >as in > > > > > >>>>Kernel-jar.1537: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>Context >> cannotReturn: result > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> closureOrNil ifNotNil: [^ self cannotReturn:
result
to:
self > > > > > >>>>home sender]. > > > > > >>>> self error: 'Computation has been terminated!' > > > > > >>>>"<----------- this has to be an Error -----" > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>Then it almost works except when you keep
stepping
over
in > >the > > > > > >>>>example above, you get an MNU error on `self
previousPc`
in > > > > > >>>>#cannotReturn:to:` with your solution of the VM
crash.
If you > > > >don't > > > > > >>>>mind I've amended your solution and added the
final
context > >where > > > > > >>>>the computation couldn't return along with the
pc:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>Context >> cannotReturn: result to: homeContext > > > > > >>>> "The receiver tried to return result to
homeContext
that > >cannot > > > > > >>>>be returned from. > > > > > >>>> Capture the return context/pc in a
BlockCannotReturn.
Nil > >the pc > > > > > >>>>to prevent repeat > > > > > >>>> attempts and/or invalid continuation. Answer
the
result
of > > > > > >>>>raising the exception." > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> | exception previousPc | > > > > > >>>> exception := BlockCannotReturn new. > > > > > >>>> previousPc := pc ifNotNil: [self previousPc].
"<-----
here's > >a > > > > > >>>>fix ----" > > > > > >>>> exception > > > > > >>>> result: result; > > > > > >>>> deadHome: homeContext; > > > > > >>>> finalContext: self; "<----- here's the new
state,
if
> > > > > >>>>that's fine ----" > > > > > >>>> pc: previousPc. > > > > > >>>> pc := nil. > > > > > >>>> ^exception signal > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>Unfortunately, this is still not the end of the
story:
there > >are > > > > > >>>>situations where #runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom:
places
the
two > >guard > > > > > >>>>contexts below the bottom context. And that is a
problem
> >because > > > > > >>>>when the method tries to remove the two guard
contexts
before > > > > > >>>>returning at the end it uses #stepToCalee to do
the
job
but > >this > > > > > >>>>unforotunately was (ab)using the above bug in #return:from: - > > > >I'll > > > > > >>>>explain: #return:from: didn't check whether
aSender
sender > >was > > > >nil > > > > > >>>>and as a result it allowed to simulate a return
to a
"nil > > > >context" > > > > > >>>>which was then (ab)used in the clean-up via
#stepToCalee
in > >the > > > > > >>>>#runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom:. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>When I fixed the #return:from: bug, the > > > >#runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom: > > > > > >>>>cleanup of the guard contexts no longer works in
that
very > > > >special > > > > > >>>>case where the guard contexts are below the
bottom
context. > > > >There's > > > > > >>>>one case where this is being used:
#terminateAggresively
by > > > > > >>>>Christoph. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>If I'm right with this analysis, the > >#runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom: > > > > > >>>>should get fixed too but I'll be away now for a
few
days
and > >I > > > >won't > > > > > >>>>be able to respond. If you or Christoph had a
chance
to
take > >a > > > >look > > > > > >>>>at Kernel-jar.1538 and Kernel-jar.1537 I'd be
very
grateful. > >I > > > >hope > > > > > >>>>this super long message at least makes some
sense :)
> > > > > >>>>Best, > > > > > >>>>Jaromir > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>[1] Kernel-jar.1538, Kernel-jar.1537 > > > > > >>>>[2] KernelTests-jar.447 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>PS: Christoph, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>With Kernel-jar.1538 + Kernel-jar.1537 your
example
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>process := > > > > > >>>> [(c := thisContext) pc: nil. > > > > > >>>> 2+3] newProcess. > > > > > >>>>process runUntil: [:ctx | ctx selector = #cannotReturn:]. > > > > > >>>>self assert: process suspendedContext sender
sender
= c.
> > > > > >>>>self assert: process suspendedContext arguments
=
{c}.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>works fine, I've just corrected your first
assert.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>On 21-Nov-23 6:40:32 PM, "Eliot Miranda" > > > ><eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > > > > > >>>>wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>>Hi Jaromir, > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>On Nov 20, 2023, at 11:51 PM, Jaromir Matas > > > ><mail(a)jaromir.net> > > > > > >>>>>>wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>Hi Eliot, > > > > > >>>>>>Very elegant! Now I finally got what you meant
exactly
:) > > > >Thanks. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>Two questions: > > > > > >>>>>>1. in order for the enclosed test to work I'd
need
an
Error > > > > > >>>>>>instead of Processor debugWithTitle:full: call
in
> > > >#cannotReturn:. > > > > > >>>>>>Otherwise I don't know how to catch a plain
invocation
of > >the > > > > > >>>>>>Debugger: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>cannotReturn: result > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> closureOrNil ifNotNil: [^ self cannotReturn:
result
to: > >self > > > > > >>>>>>home sender]. > > > > > >>>>>> self error: 'Computation has been
terminated!'
> > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>Much nicer. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>2. We are capturing a pc of self which is
completely
> >different > > > > > >>>>>>context from homeContext indeed. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>Right. The return is attempted from a specific
return
> >bytecode > > > >in a > > > > > >>>>>specific block. This is the coordinate of the
return
that > >cannot > > > >be > > > > > >>>>>made. This is the relevant point of origin of
the
cannot > >return > > > > > >>>>>exception. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>Why the return fails is another matter: > > > > > >>>>>- the home context’s sender is a dead context
(cannot
be > > > >resumed) > > > > > >>>>>- the home context’s sender is nil (home
already
returned > >from) > > > > > >>>>>- the block activation’s home is nil rather
than a
context > > > >(should > > > > > >>>>>not happen) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>But in all these cases the pc of the home
context
is
> >immaterial. > > > > > >>>>>The hike is being returned through/from, rather
than
from; > >the > > > > > >>>>>home’s pc is not relevant. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>Maybe we could capture self in the exception
too
to
make it > > > >more > > > > > >>>>>>clear/explicit what is going on: what context
the
captured > >pc > > > >is > > > > > >>>>>>actually associated with. Just a thought... > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>Yes, I like that. I also like the idea of
somehow
passing > >the > > > > > >>>>>block activation’s pc to the debugger so that
the
relevant > > > >return > > > > > >>>>>expression is highlighted in the debugger. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>Thanks again, > > > > > >>>>>>Jaromir > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>You’re welcome. I love working in this part of
the
system. > > > >Thanks > > > > > >>>>>for dragging me there. I’m in a slump right now
and
> >appreciate > > > >the > > > > > >>>>>fellowship. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>------ Original Message ------ > > > > > >>>>>>From "Eliot Miranda"
<eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>To "Jaromir Matas" <mail(a)jaromir.net> > > > > > >>>>>>Cc squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > > > > >>>>>>Date 11/21/2023 2:17:21 AM > > > > > >>>>>>Subject Re: Re[2]: [squeak-dev] Re: Resuming
on
> > > >BlockCannotReturn > > > > > >>>>>>exception > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>Hi Jaromir, > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> see Kernel-eem.1535 for what I was
suggesting.
This
> >example > > > > > >>>>>>>now has an exception with the right pc value
in
it:
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>[[^1] on: BlockCannotReturn do: [:ex| ex pc
inspect.
ex > > > >resume]] > > > > > >>>>>>>fork > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>The fix is simply > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>Context>>cannotReturn: result to: homeContext > > > > > >>>>>>> "The receiver tried to return result to
homeContext
that > > > > > >>>>>>>cannot be returned from. > > > > > >>>>>>> Capture the return pc in a
BlockCannotReturn.
Nil
the pc > >to > > > > > >>>>>>>prevent repeat > > > > > >>>>>>> attempts and/or invalid continuation. Answer
the
result > >of > > > > > >>>>>>>raising the exception." > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> | exception | > > > > > >>>>>>> exception := BlockCannotReturn new. > > > > > >>>>>>> exception > > > > > >>>>>>> result: result; > > > > > >>>>>>> deadHome: homeContext; > > > > > >>>>>>> pc: self previousPc. > > > > > >>>>>>> pc := nil. > > > > > >>>>>>> ^exception signal > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>The VM crash is now avoided. The debugger
displays
the > >method, > > > > > >>>>>>>but does not highlight the offending pc,
which is
no
big > >deal. > > > >A > > > > > >>>>>>>suitable defaultHandler for B
lockCannotReturn
may be
able > >to > > > >get > > > > > >>>>>>>the debugger to highlight correctly on
opening.
Try
the > > > > > >>>>>>>following examples: > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>[[^1] on: BlockCannotReturn do: #resume]
fork.
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>[[^1] on: BlockCannotReturn do: [:ex| ex pc
inspect.
ex > > > >resume]] > > > > > >>>>>>>fork > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>[[^1] value] fork. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>They al; seem to behave perfectly acceptably
to
me.
Does > >this > > > > > >>>>>>>fix work for you? > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 3:14 PM Jaromir Matas > > > ><mail(a)jaromir.net> > > > > > >>>>>>>wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>Hi Eliot, > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>How about to nil the pc just before making
the
return: > > > > > >>>>>>>>``` > > > > > >>>>>>>>Context >> #cannotReturn: result > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> self push: self pc. "backup the pc for the
sake
of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>debugging" > > > > > >>>>>>>> closureOrNil ifNotNil: [^self cannotReturn:
result
to: > >self > > > > > >>>>>>>>home sender; pc: nil]. > > > > > >>>>>>>> Processor debugWithTitle: 'Computation has
been
> >terminated!' > > > > > >>>>>>>>translated full: false > > > > > >>>>>>>>``` > > > > > >>>>>>>>The nilled pc should not even potentially
interfere
with > >the > > > > > >>>>>>>>#isDead now. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>I hope this is at least a step in the right direction :) > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>However, there's still a problem when
debugging
the
> > > >resumption > > > > > >>>>>>>>of #cannotReturn because the encoders expect
a
reasonable > > > >index. > > > > > >>>>>>>>I haven't figured out yet where to place a
nil
check
> >#step, > > > > > >>>>>>>>#stepToSendOrReturn... ? > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Thanks again, > > > > > >>>>>>>>Jaromir > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>------ Original Message ------ > > > > > >>>>>>>>From "Eliot Miranda"
<eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>To "Jaromir Matas" <mail(a)jaromir.net> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Date 11/17/2023 8:36:50 PM > > > > > >>>>>>>>Subject Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Resuming on > >BlockCannotReturn > > > > > >>>>>>>>exception > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Hi Jaromir, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>On Nov 17, 2023, at 7:05 AM, Jaromir Matas > > > ><mail(a)jaromir.net> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Eliot, hi again, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Please disregard my previous comment about
nilling
the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>contexts that have returned. We are indeed
talking
> >about > > > >the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>context directly under the #cannotReturn
context
which > >is > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>totally different from the home context in
another
> >thread > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>that's gone. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>I may still be confused but would nilling
the
pc
of the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>context directly under the cannotReturn
context
help? > > > >Here's > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>what I mean: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>``` > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Context >> #cannotReturn: result > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> closureOrNil ifNotNil: [^self pc: nil; cannotReturn: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>result to: self home sender]. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Processor debugWithTitle: 'Computation
has
been
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>terminated!' translated full: false. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>``` > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Instead of crashing the VM invokes the
debugger
with > >the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>'Computation has been terminated!'
message.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Does this make sense? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Nearly. But it loses the information on
what
the pc
> >actually > > > > > >>>>>>>>>is, and that’s potentially vital
information.
So
IMO the > >ox > > > > > >>>>>>>>>should only be nilled between the
BlockCannotReturn
> > > >exception > > > > > >>>>>>>>>being created and raised. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>[But if you try this don’t be surprised if
it
causes a > >few > > > > > >>>>>>>>>temporary problems. It looks to me that
without
a
little > > > > > >>>>>>>>>refactoring this could easily cause an
infinite
> >recursion > > > > > >>>>>>>>>around the sending of isDead. I’m sure
you’ll
be
able to > >fix > > > > > >>>>>>>>>the code to work correctly] > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Thanks, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Jaromir > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>------ Original Message ------ > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>From "Jaromir Matas" <mail(a)jaromir.net> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>To "Eliot Miranda"
<eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>;
"The > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>general-purpose Squeak developers list" > > > > > >>>>>>>>>><squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Date 11/17/2023 10:15:17 AM > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Subject [squeak-dev] Re: Resuming on BlockCannotReturn > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>exception > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hi Eliot, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>------ Original Message ------ > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>From "Eliot Miranda"
<eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>To "Jaromir Matas" <mail(a)jaromir.net> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Cc "The general-purpose Squeak developers
list"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>><squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Date 11/16/2023 11:52:45 PM > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject Re: Re[2]: [squeak-dev] Re:
Resuming
on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>BlockCannotReturn exception > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Jaromir, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 2:22 PM Jaromir
Matas
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>><mail(a)jaromir.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Nicolas, Eliot, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>here's what I understand is happening
(see
the
> >enclosed > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>screenshot): > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>1) we fork a new process to evaluate
[^1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>2) the new process evaluates [^1] which
means
> > > >instruction > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>18 is being evaluated, hence pc points
to
> >instruction 19 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>now > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>3) however, the home context where ^1
should
return > >to > > > >is > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>gone by this time (the process that
executed
the > >fork > > > >has > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>already returned - notice the two up
arrows
in
the > > > >debugger > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>screenshot) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>4) the VM can't finish the instruction
and
returns > > > >control > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to the image via placing the
#cannotReturn:
context > >on > > > >top > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>of the [^1] context > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>5) #cannotReturn: evaluation results in signalling > >the > > > >BCR > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>exception which is then handled by the
#resume
> >handler > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (in our debugged case the [:ex | self
halt. ex
> >resume] > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>handler) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>6) ex resume is evaluated, however,
this
means
> > > >requesting > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the VM to evaluate instruction 19 of
the
[^1]
> >context - > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>which is past the last instruction of
the
context > >and > > > >the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>crash ensues > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>I wonder whether such situations
could/should
be > > > >prevented > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>inside the VM or whether such an
expectation is
> >wrong > > > >for > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>some reason. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>As Nicolas says, IMO this is best done
at
the
image > > > >level. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>It could be prevented in the VM, but at
great
cost, > >and > > > >only > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>partially. The performance issue is that
the
last > > > >bytecode > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>in a method is not marked in any way,
and
that
to > > > >determine > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the last bytecode the bytecodes must be symbolically > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>evaluated from the start of the method.
See
> >implementors > > > >of > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>endPC at the image level (which defer to
the
method > > > >trailer) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>and implementors of endPCOf: in the
VMMaker
code. > >Doing > > > >this > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>every time execution commences is
prohibitively
> > > >expensive. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>The "only partially" issue is that
following
the
> >return > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>instruction may be other valid
bytecodes,
but
these > >are > > > >not > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>a continuation. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Consider the following code in some
block:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [self expression ifTrue: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [^1]. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ^2 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>The bytecodes for this are > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pushReceiver > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> send #expression > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> jumpFalse L1 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> push 1 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> methodReturnTop > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>L1 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> push 2 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> methodReturnTop > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly if expression is true these
should
be
*no* > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>continuation in which ^2 is executed. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Well, in that case there's a bug because
the
> >computation > > > >in > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the following example shouldn't continue
past
the
[^1] > > > >block > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>but it silently does: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>`[[true ifTrue: [^ 1]] on:
BlockCannotReturn
do:
> >#resume ] > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>fork` > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>The bytecodes are > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> push true > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jumpFalse L1 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> push 1 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> returnTop > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>L1 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> push nil > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> blockReturn > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>So even if the VM did try and detect
whether
the
> >return > > > >was > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>at the last block method, it would only
work
for
> >special > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>cases. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>It seems to me the issue is simply that
the
context > >that > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>cannot be returned from should be marked
as
dead
(see > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Context>>isDead) by setting its pc to
nil at
some > >point, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>presumably after copying the actual
return
pc
into > >the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>BlockCannotReturn exception, to avoid
ever
trying to > > > >resume > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the context. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Does this mean, in other words, that
every
context > >that > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>returns should nil its pc to avoid being "wrongly" > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>reused/executed in the future, which
concerns
> >primarily > > > >those > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>being referenced somewhere hence
potentially
> >executable in > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the future, is that right? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hypothetical question: would nilling the
pc
during > >returns > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>"fix" the example? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Thanks a lot for helping me understand
this.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Best, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Jaromir > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Jaromir > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>><bdxuqalu.png> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>------ Original Message ------ > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>From "Eliot Miranda" <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>To "Jaromir Matas"
<mail(a)jaromir.net>;
"The
> > > >general-purpose > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Squeak developers list" > > > > > >>>>>>>><squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Date 11/16/2023 6:48:43 PM > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Resuming
on
> > > >BlockCannotReturn > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>exception > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Jaromir, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Nov 16, 2023, at 3:23 AM, Jaromir
Matas
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><mail(a)jaromir.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Nicloas, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No no, I don't have any practical
scenario in
> >mind, > > > >I'm > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>just trying to understand why the VM
is
> >implemented > > > >like > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this, whether there were a reason to
leave
this > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possibility of a crash, e.g. it would
slow
down > >the VM > > > >to > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>try to prevent such a dumb situation
(who
would > >resume > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from BCR in his right mind? :) ) - or
perhaps
I > >have > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>overlooked some good reason to even
keep
this
> >behavior > > > >in > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the VM. That's all. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Let’s first understand what’s really happening. > > > >Presumably > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>at tone point a context is resumed
those
pc is
> >already > > > >at > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the block return bytecode
(effectively,
because it > > > >crashes > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>in JITted code, but I bet the stack vm
will
crash > >also, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>but not as cleanly - it will try and
execute
the > >bytes > > > >in > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the encoded method trailer). So which
method
> >actually > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>sends resume, and to what, and what
state
is
> >resume’s > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>receiver when resume is sent? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for your reply. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Regards, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jaromir > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>------ Original Message ------ > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>From "Nicolas Cellier" > > > > > >>>>>>>>>><nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To "Jaromir Matas"
<mail(a)jaromir.net>;
"The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>general-purpose Squeak developers
list"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>><squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Date 11/16/2023 7:20:20 AM > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject Re: [squeak-dev] Resuming on > >BlockCannotReturn > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>exception > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Jaromir, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there a scenario where it would
make
sense to > > > >resume > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a BlockCannotReturn? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If not, I would suggest to protect
at
image
side > >and > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>override #resume. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Le mer. 15 nov. 2023, 23:42, Jaromir
Matas
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><mail(a)jaromir.net> a écrit : > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Eliot, Christoph, All, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's known the following example
crashes
the VM. > >Is > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this an intended behavior or a
"tolerated
bug"? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>`[[^ 1] on: BlockCannotReturn do:
#resume]
fork` > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I understand why it crashes: the
non-local
> >return > > > >has > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nowhere to return to and so
resuming
the
> >computation > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>leads to a crash. But why not raise
another
BCR > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>exception to prevent the crash?
Potential
> >infinite > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>loop? Perhaps I'm just missing the
purpose
of > >this > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>behavior... > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for an explanation. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Best, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jaromir > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-- > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jaromir Matas > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-- > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>_,,,^..^,,,_ > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>best, Eliot > > > > > >>>>>>>>>><Context-cannotReturn.st> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>-- > > > > > >>>>>>>_,,,^..^,,,_ > > > > > >>>>>>>best, Eliot > > > > > >>>>>><ProcessTest-testResumeAfterBCR.st>
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk