Any reason I shouldn't ship "Squeak 64-32 5.4b2.app.zip" with Squeak 4.0?
"Ronald" == Ronald Spengler ron.spengler@gmail.com writes:
Ronald> Any reason I shouldn't ship "Squeak 64-32 5.4b2.app.zip" with Squeak 4.0?
If that's a 64-bit image, it won't run on my machine. :)
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:48:44PM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Ronald" == Ronald Spengler ron.spengler@gmail.com writes:
Ronald> Any reason I shouldn't ship "Squeak 64-32 5.4b2.app.zip" with Squeak 4.0?
If that's a 64-bit image, it won't run on my machine. :)
On the contrary, you most definitely *can* run a 64-bit image on your 32-bit machine:
http://squeakvm.org/squeak64/faq.html#4
IIUC, John's recent VMs can take advantage of 64-bit processing on a Mac, as well as the more usual 32-bit processing mode.
Dave
"David" == David T Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com writes:
David> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:48:44PM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> "Ronald" == Ronald Spengler ron.spengler@gmail.com writes:
Ronald> Any reason I shouldn't ship "Squeak 64-32 5.4b2.app.zip" with Squeak 4.0?
If that's a 64-bit image, it won't run on my machine. :)
David> On the contrary, you most definitely *can* run a 64-bit image David> on your 32-bit machine:
David> http://squeakvm.org/squeak64/faq.html#4
I misspoke when I said "64-bit image".
What I meant was a 64-bit program. I think you need Snow Leopard for that, and I'm only running Leopard.
Not the image, the VM; since this is the Mac VM linked on squeak.org. I'm thinking it makes more sense to just ship the old VM, since it's effectively an old image, runs without closures, and has been more thoroughly tested on the old VM. It's possible that some folks will want the license without wanting Trunk's changes, and have no use for closures, etc.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com wrote:
"Ronald" == Ronald Spengler ron.spengler@gmail.com writes:
Ronald> Any reason I shouldn't ship "Squeak 64-32 5.4b2.app.zip" with Squeak 4.0?
If that's a 64-bit image, it won't run on my machine. :)
-- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 merlyn@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:27 -0800, Ronald Spengler wrote:
Any reason I shouldn't ship "Squeak 64-32 5.4b2.app.zip" with Squeak 4.0?
Is John McIntosh available to ask? That is where I got the VMs I tested, http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com/. (His VM page should get an award for anonymity.)
In the last tests I ran on a PowerPC iMac 64 - 32 did not do as well as the older VM. Note the warning about being for testing only.
My results:
Sunday, 28 February 2010, 3:17:45 am, squeak Unit test results from Gary Dunn, osp@aloha.com
Model Name: iMac G5 Model Identifier: PowerMac8,1 Processor Name: PowerPC G5 (3.0) Processor Speed: 1.8 GHz Number Of CPUs: 1 L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB Memory: 512 MB Bus Speed: 600 MHz Boot ROM Version: 5.2.2f4 OS X 10.5.8 Squeak3.11-9371-alpha.image
VM Squeak 64-32 5.4b2.app from ftp.smalltalkconsulting.com "Only use this VM for testing, it lacks mac menu integration." 2578 run, 2560 passes, 6 expected failures, 10 failures, 1 errors, 1 unexpected passes run time 16 min.
Failure List AllocationTest>>#testOneGigAllocation ClosureCompilerTest>>#testDebuggerTempAccess ClosureCompilerTest>>#testInjectIntoDecompilations ClosureCompilerTest>>#testInjectIntoDecompiledDebugs DebuggerUnwindBug>>#testUnwindDebuggerWithStep FloatTest>>#testNaNCompare LocaleTest>>#testIsFontAvailable MCPackageTest>>#testUnload ScaledDecimalTest>>#testAsNumberWithSuperfluousDecimalPoint SqNumberParserTest>>#testFloatGradualUnderflow SqNumberParserTest>>#testFloatPrintString
Error List SMDependencyTest>>#test2
VM Squeak 4.2.2beta1U.app 2578 run, 2555 passes, 7 expected failures, 15 failures, 1 errors, 0 unexpected passes run time 15 min.
Failure List BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbAdd BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMax BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMin BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMinInvert BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbSub ClosureCompilerTest>>#testDebuggerTempAccess ClosureCompilerTest>>#testInjectIntoDecompilations ClosureCompilerTest>>#testInjectIntoDecompiledDebugs DebuggerUnwindBug>>#testUnwindDebuggerWithStep FloatTest>>#testNaNCompare LocaleTest>>#testIsFontAvailable MCPackageTest>>#testUnload ScaledDecimalTest>>#testAsNumberWithSuperfluousDecimalPoint SqNumberParserTest>>#testFloatGradualUnderflow SqNumberParserTest>>#testFloatPrintString
Error List SMDependencyTest>>#test2
Ok, it's a test VM, not really for production usage, plus it has little support for plugins in 64bit mode. It also doesn't run on 10.4 or earlier, unlike the 4.2.2 VM which should run on 10.2 or later.
Garry ran it in 32bit mode on a Powerpc. It *should* have behaved like the 4.2.2beta1U VM. But he reported these tests worked with V5, but not V4.
On 2010-03-08, at 10:19 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbAdd BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMax BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMin BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMinInvert BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbSub
Obviously that is interesting...
What would be more telling is how it behaves if you run the tests on a MacIntel machine.
BTW it does run on PowerPC 32bit, or MacIntel in 32 or 64bit mode. In theory if you do a get info, and check the (Open in 32bit mode) then it should enable use of all the 4.x era plugins.
-- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Den 09.03.2010 07:49, skrev John M McIntosh:
Ok, it's a test VM, not really for production usage, plus it has little support for plugins in 64bit mode. It also doesn't run on 10.4 or earlier, unlike the 4.2.2 VM which should run on 10.2 or later.
Garry ran it in 32bit mode on a Powerpc. It *should* have behaved like the 4.2.2beta1U VM. But he reported these tests worked with V5, but not V4.
On 2010-03-08, at 10:19 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbAdd BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMax BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMin BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMinInvert BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbSub
Obviously that is interesting...
What would be more telling is how it behaves if you run the tests on a MacIntel machine.
BTW it does run on PowerPC 32bit, or MacIntel in 32 or 64bit mode. In theory if you do a get info, and check the (Open in 32bit mode) then it should enable use of all the 4.x era plugins.
Those tests are for the overflow bugs in BitBlt plugin which were fixed in a later version than 4.2.2 was built from. (but included in 5.X) IIRC, some time ago you mentioned maybe releasing a new 4.2.X as well, with an updated version of the plugins :)
Cheers, Henry
On 09.03.2010, at 12:54, Henrik Johansen wrote:
Den 09.03.2010 07:49, skrev John M McIntosh:
Ok, it's a test VM, not really for production usage, plus it has little support for plugins in 64bit mode. It also doesn't run on 10.4 or earlier, unlike the 4.2.2 VM which should run on 10.2 or later.
Garry ran it in 32bit mode on a Powerpc. It *should* have behaved like the 4.2.2beta1U VM. But he reported these tests worked with V5, but not V4.
On 2010-03-08, at 10:19 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbAdd BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMax BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMin BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbMinInvert BitBltTest>>#testAllAlphasRgbSub
Obviously that is interesting...
What would be more telling is how it behaves if you run the tests on a MacIntel machine.
BTW it does run on PowerPC 32bit, or MacIntel in 32 or 64bit mode. In theory if you do a get info, and check the (Open in 32bit mode) then it should enable use of all the 4.x era plugins.
Those tests are for the overflow bugs in BitBlt plugin which were fixed in a later version than 4.2.2 was built from. (but included in 5.X) IIRC, some time ago you mentioned maybe releasing a new 4.2.X as well, with an updated version of the plugins :)
Cheers, Henry
I for one would very much like if all the stable VMs had a 4 as major version number ...
- Bert -
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:57:05PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
I for one would very much like if all the stable VMs had a 4 as major version number ...
If there are no objections, I will update the #versionString in VMMaker to '4.0.0'. This will cause future unix VM builds to have labels such as '4.0.0-1345'.
The down side it that it implies a major functional change to the VM, when no such change has happened.
Objections?
Dave
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 08:27:48AM -0500, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:57:05PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
I for one would very much like if all the stable VMs had a 4 as major version number ...
If there are no objections, I will update the #versionString in VMMaker to '4.0.0'. This will cause future unix VM builds to have labels such as '4.0.0-1345'.
The down side it that it implies a major functional change to the VM, when no such change has happened.
Objections?
I have updated the #versionString for VMMaker to '4.0.0' in VMMaker-dtl.161 on SqueakSource.
Dave
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bert Freudenberg -
David T. Lewis -
Gary Dunn -
Henrik Johansen -
John M McIntosh -
merlyn＠stonehenge.com -
Ronald Spengler