Hi. I have a related question once again with this topic. I've changed Interpreter >> normalSend to something like this:

normalSend
    "Send a message, starting lookup with the receiver's class."
    "Assume: messageSelector and argumentCount have been set, and that
    the receiver and arguments have been pushed onto the stack,"
    "Note: This method is inlined into the interpreter dispatch loop."
    | rcvr |
    self inline: true.
    self sharedCodeNamed: 'normalSend' inCase: 131.
    rcvr := self internalStackValue: argumentCount.
    ((self isIntegerObject: rcvr) not and: [hasToTrace])
        ifTrue: [
            self internalTurnOnUsedBit: rcvr.
            ].
    lkupClass := self fetchClassOf: rcvr.
    receiverClass := lkupClass.
    self commonSend.

So...if it is not a SmallInetger and if the flag is on, I turn on a bit.

The question is, if I send a normal message to a normal object. Example:

| anObject |
anObject := MyClass new.
anObject foo

Now...I am sure that "anObject" was marked with the bit. But what about:
a) the compiled method MyClass >> #foo
b) MyClass

should they be marked?

In other words:

self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject).
    self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject class).
    self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: (anObject class >> #foo)).

    anObject foo.

    self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject).
    self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject class).
    self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: (anObject class >> #foo)).


should all the asserts pass? I ask because I don't know how CompiledMethods are executed (they receive a normalSend like any other object?) nor how class are accessed.

Thanks in advance,

Mariano

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11 May 2010 17:40, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > Thanks Igor. I could see #class does not the normal way. It was logic as it already has the pointer there ;)
>> >
>> > Now I wonder...to avoid those special cases, do you think it makes sense to intercept in commonSend rather than commonSend ? or it would be the same ?
>> >
>> err... commonSend or commonSend? i think it would be the same :)
>>
>
> hahahah sorry, I meant commonSend instead of normalSend.
>
>
>>
>> the other point, where you can try intercept a send is cache lookup.
>>
>
> internalFindNewMethod ?
>

I don't know, maybe :)

> Thanks
>
> Mariano
>
>
>>
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Mariano
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you very much.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mariano
>> >> >
>> >> > chers
>> >> > Eliot
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>
>

--

Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.