Hi,
I tried revalidating my pull request https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/136
But validation checks are failing in Appveyor and Travis.
Appveyor ld suffers a seg fault in win32x86/squeak.cog.v3 since 3 days:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/history
Travis has been failing for past 4 months (since build 603)
https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds
What should I do with my pull request? Close it now? or Wait for a green build and resubmit a new PR against this commit?
Appreciate your help in resolving this bottleneck.
TIA .. Subbu
Hi Subbu, yes the red status is not very instructive... The status of change seems OK, no regression, I'd like to have an opinion of Pharo team, because it sounds like reverting their double dash changes (which you say was unecessary), and allowing backward double dash compatibility for everyone (which Squeak does not really need, but it does not hurt).
To me, reducing the unecessary differences between Squeak/Pharo is a good thing, but I don't want to decide such things alone, as Ben suggested, this should be discussed here (or was it?). Esteban?
2017-06-10 20:22 GMT+02:00 K K Subbu kksubbu.ml@gmail.com:
Hi,
I tried revalidating my pull request https://github.com/OpenSmallta lk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/136
But validation checks are failing in Appveyor and Travis.
Appveyor ld suffers a seg fault in win32x86/squeak.cog.v3 since 3 days:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/history
Travis has been failing for past 4 months (since build 603)
https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds
What should I do with my pull request? Close it now? or Wait for a green build and resubmit a new PR against this commit?
Appreciate your help in resolving this bottleneck.
TIA .. Subbu
Eliot/Esteban,
Thank you for the clarifications.
I have no specific preference on - or -- but I took care to ensure that no existing script or code will break and others can continue to follow their convention. More accommodation with less code.
The patch is really a trial towards a larger goal. As per sloccount(1) tool, platforms/unix has grown quite big - ~ 37k C and ~ 10k of sh with vm alone accounting for ~6k. It has already exceeded the comfort zone of a single developer. Without careful pruning, the trunk branch will bloat and rot over time. Git makes pruning really simple.
The main vm code should really be a thin layer which just reifies host-specific objects (processor, memory, file, os, ...) and enters the interpreter loop as early as possible. Rest of the logic can be handled in Smalltalk. We don't even have to wait to detect peripherals like display or audio to start the main loop, as they can be loaded at any time. Keeping the vm code small also encourages more ports.
Regards .. Subbu
On Sunday 11 June 2017 01:31 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
Hi Subbu, yes the red status is not very instructive... The status of change seems OK, no regression, I'd like to have an opinion of Pharo team, because it sounds like reverting their double dash changes (which you say was unecessary), and allowing backward double dash compatibility for everyone (which Squeak does not really need, but it does not hurt).
To me, reducing the unecessary differences between Squeak/Pharo is a good thing, but I don't want to decide such things alone, as Ben suggested, this should be discussed here (or was it?). Esteban?
2017-06-10 20:22 GMT+02:00 K K Subbu <kksubbu.ml@gmail.com mailto:kksubbu.ml@gmail.com>:
Hi, I tried revalidating my pull request https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/136 <https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/136> But validation checks are failing in Appveyor and Travis. Appveyor ld suffers a seg fault in win32x86/squeak.cog.v3 since 3 days: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/history <https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/history> Travis has been failing for past 4 months (since build 603) https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds <https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds> What should I do with my pull request? Close it now? or Wait for a green build and resubmit a new PR against this commit? Appreciate your help in resolving this bottleneck. TIA .. Subbu
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:24 PM, K K Subbu kksubbu.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Eliot/Esteban,
Thank you for the clarifications.
I have no specific preference on - or -- but I took care to ensure that no existing script or code will break and others can continue to follow their convention. More accommodation with less code.
The patch is really a trial towards a larger goal. As per sloccount(1) tool, platforms/unix has grown quite big - ~ 37k C and ~ 10k of sh with vm alone accounting for ~6k. It has already exceeded the comfort zone of a single developer. Without careful pruning, the trunk branch will bloat and rot over time. Git makes pruning really simple.
The main vm code should really be a thin layer which just reifies host-specific objects (processor, memory, file, os, ...) and enters the interpreter loop as early as possible. Rest of the logic can be handled in Smalltalk. We don't even have to wait to detect peripherals like display or audio to start the main loop, as they can be loaded at any time. Keeping the vm code small also encourages more ports.
Regards .. Subbu
On Sunday 11 June 2017 01:31 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
Hi Subbu, yes the red status is not very instructive... The status of change seems OK, no regression, I'd like to have an opinion of Pharo team, because it sounds like reverting their double dash changes (which you say was unecessary), and allowing backward double dash compatibility for everyone (which Squeak does not really need, but it does not hurt).
To me, reducing the unecessary differences between Squeak/Pharo is a good thing, but I don't want to decide such things alone, as Ben suggested, this should be discussed here (or was it?). Esteban?
If I can hazard to guess, some "#if PharoVM" were simply the easiest/quickest way to deal with all the little divergences the Pharo-non-OpenSmalltalkVM had accumulated, to efficently re-integrate with OpenSmalltalkVM without getting caught up in discussions such as this. My initial concerns may have been over-enthusiastic at guessing at Pharo's requirements. While Esteban has been very busy ironing out the Pharo 6 release, maybe we can take from his lack of comment that the remaining issue "--help showing only single-dashes" is not a big deal.
So lets integrate the PR (because there are some other good things in it, and also its good to minimise the "#if PharoVM"s ). Part of Pharo philosophy to facilitate moving forward is that mistakes are okay. Its only a mistake if someone complains, and its then easy to add double-dash to help message. I wouldn't expect the permissive single+double dash in actual options to be any problem.
cheers -ben
2017-06-10 20:22 GMT+02:00 K K Subbu <kksubbu.ml@gmail.com mailto:kksubbu.ml@gmail.com>:
Hi, I tried revalidating my pull request https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/136 <https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/136> But validation checks are failing in Appveyor and Travis. Appveyor ld suffers a seg fault in win32x86/squeak.cog.v3 since 3days:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/history <https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/history> Travis has been failing for past 4 months (since build 603) https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds <https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds> What should I do with my pull request? Close it now? or Wait for a green build and resubmit a new PR against this commit? Appreciate your help in resolving this bottleneck. TIA .. Subbu
Hi Ben, Hi Subbu,
On Jun 12, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Ben Coman btc@openinworld.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:24 PM, K K Subbu kksubbu.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Eliot/Esteban,
Thank you for the clarifications.
I have no specific preference on - or -- but I took care to ensure that no existing script or code will break and others can continue to follow their convention. More accommodation with less code.
The patch is really a trial towards a larger goal. As per sloccount(1) tool, platforms/unix has grown quite big - ~ 37k C and ~ 10k of sh with vm alone accounting for ~6k. It has already exceeded the comfort zone of a single developer. Without careful pruning, the trunk branch will bloat and rot over time. Git makes pruning really simple.
The main vm code should really be a thin layer which just reifies host-specific objects (processor, memory, file, os, ...) and enters the interpreter loop as early as possible. Rest of the logic can be handled in Smalltalk. We don't even have to wait to detect peripherals like display or audio to start the main loop, as they can be loaded at any time. Keeping the vm code small also encourages more ports.
Regards .. Subbu
On Sunday 11 June 2017 01:31 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: Hi Subbu, yes the red status is not very instructive... The status of change seems OK, no regression, I'd like to have an opinion of Pharo team, because it sounds like reverting their double dash changes (which you say was unecessary), and allowing backward double dash compatibility for everyone (which Squeak does not really need, but it does not hurt).
To me, reducing the unecessary differences between Squeak/Pharo is a good thing, but I don't want to decide such things alone, as Ben suggested, this should be discussed here (or was it?). Esteban?
If I can hazard to guess, some "#if PharoVM" were simply the easiest/quickest way to deal with all the little divergences the Pharo-non-OpenSmalltalkVM had accumulated, to efficently re-integrate with OpenSmalltalkVM without getting caught up in discussions such as this. My initial concerns may have been over-enthusiastic at guessing at Pharo's requirements. While Esteban has been very busy ironing out the Pharo 6 release, maybe we can take from his lack of comment that the remaining issue "--help showing only single-dashes" is not a big deal.
So lets integrate the PR (because there are some other good things in it, and also its good to minimise the "#if PharoVM"s ). Part of Pharo philosophy to facilitate moving forward is that mistakes are okay. Its only a mistake if someone complains, and its then easy to add double-dash to help message. I wouldn't expect the permissive single+double dash in actual options to be any problem.
Whatever gets omitted please make sure that the help text remains correct t and that the Pharo vm accepts double dashes and the Squeak vm accepts si tie dashes. There are a host of scripts and documents that use either one or the other depending on dialect and the vm must not break them.
Personally I don't object to the Squeak vm access the my both single and double dashes, but others might differ. What the Pharo vm should do with single dashes is, I think, up to Esteban.
cheers -ben
2017-06-10 20:22 GMT+02:00 K K Subbu <kksubbu.ml@gmail.com mailto:kksubbu.ml@gmail.com>:
Hi, I tried revalidating my pull request https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/136 <https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/136> But validation checks are failing in Appveyor and Travis. Appveyor ld suffers a seg fault in win32x86/squeak.cog.v3 since 3 days: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/history <https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/history> Travis has been failing for past 4 months (since build 603) https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds <https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds> What should I do with my pull request? Close it now? or Wait for a green build and resubmit a new PR against this commit? Appreciate your help in resolving this bottleneck. TIA .. Subbu
On Monday 12 June 2017 09:35 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
Whatever gets omitted please make sure that the help text remains correct t and that the Pharo vm accepts double dashes and the Squeak vm accepts si tie dashes. There are a host of scripts and documents that use either one or the other depending on dialect and the vm must not break them.
I posted a smoke test script for important combinations (see my comment in PR). Perhaps these could be added to the post-build smoke tests to ensure that critical scripts don't break.
Regards .. Subbu
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Ben Coman -
Eliot Miranda -
K K Subbu -
Nicolas Cellier