On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert@freudenbergs.de> wrote:What exactly are you trying to do?
hehehe sorry. I am trying to "detect unused objects".
When do you consider an object to be "used"?
When it receives a message. This is why I changed #normalSend
Thanks in advance,
Mariano
On 03.10.2010, at 12:12, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: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,
MarianoOn Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know, maybe :)
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 ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mariano
>