Hi Christoph,
I have no idea where to start looking... I've managed to catch a few logs but they seem to be incomplete, as if the VM died before being able to finish them (but my experience in this department is zero).
As for the other type of errors that show up from time to time, here's a screenshot:
What surprises me the `stack` variable contains a Process (or sometimes an Exception - BCR) at this point.
Another observation was the frequency of the crashes decreased when I restarted my PC and the allocated memory decreased. As it started increasing the frequency of the crashes increased - but I have no idea whether this may have anything to do with it. (I have 16GB and the system currently uses 9, so not even over the limit...).
There's also an older dump with a chinese name from Jan-2 I've found but I have no idea what that is :)))
That's it for the moment :) best, Jaromir
On 04-Jan-24 1:34:11 AM, christoph.thiede@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
It's getting even weirder ... One of my crash dumps looks like this:
Smalltalk stack dump: 0000009f6e7d0058 I MessageCatcher class(Behavior)>name 00007ff6d1423ad0: a(n) MessageCatcher 0000009f6e7d0088 M MessageCatcher class(Class)>name 00007ff6d1423ad0: a(n) MessageCatcher 0000009f6e7d00c0 M MessageCatcher class(ClassDescription)>printOn: 00007ff6d1423ad0: a(n) MessageCatcher 0000009f6e7d00f8 M [] in MessageCatcher class>printStringLimitedTo: 00007ff6d1423ad0: a(n) MessageCatcher 0000009f6e7d0138 M String class(SequenceableCollection class)>streamContents:limitedTo: 00007ff6cc3ed0d8: a(n) String 0000009f6e7d0180 M MessageCatcher class(Object)>printStringLimitedTo: 00007ff6d1423ad0: a(n) MessageCatcher 0000009f6e7d01b8 M MessageCatcher class(Object)>printString 00007ff6d1423ad0: a(n) MessageCatcher 0000009f6e7d01e8 M MessageCatcher class(Object)>asString 00007ff6d1423ad0: a(n) MessageCatcher 0000009f6e7d0218 M MessageCatcher class(Object)>asStringOrText 00007ff6d1423ad0: a(n) MessageCatcher 0000009f6e7d0290 M LazyListMorph>display:atRow:on: 00007ff6d13792b8: a(n) LazyListMorph 0000009f6e7d0308 M LazyListMorph>drawOn: 00007ff6d13792b8: a(n) LazyListMorph 0000009f6e7dede0 M FormCanvas(Canvas)>draw: 00007ff6cbd4a258: a(n) FormCanvas 0000009f6e7dee18 M FormCanvas(Canvas)>drawMorph: 00007ff6cbd4a258: a(n) FormCanvas
But my image does not have any eventual user of MessageCatcher, just a couple of methods that are never sent ...
There seems something serious wrong with the object layout. I wish I knew how to debug this in VMMaker ...
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk
On 2024-01-04T01:17:30+01:00, christoph.thiede@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
Yes, I also got to reproduce your first screenshot. It seems to
matter that I press "debug" in the debugger first and then select the second line in the stack ...
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
On 2024-01-04T01:11:15+01:00,
christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
Hi Jaromir,
very weird ... I was able to reproduce the sporadic stack dump with
your second example, and in one situation I also got another error (I forgot to take a screenshot but it said something like errorSubscriptBounds on a BlockCannotReturn instance).
I think this is either a bug in the VM or the TraceDebugger is
abusing a set of primitives (see the comment in Sandbox2>>#context:doPrimitiveNew:receiver:args: for a similar situation). It definitely will be hard to debug. How does your crash dump look like (if the VM has created one)? (Note that the latest stack always is appended to that file.) If you could collect a few SqueakDebug.logs and crash dumps, maybe that would help. I will try the same.
I downloaded a fresh image 22929, installed the Trace debugger,
turned off the tree view and tried to run this example:
By the way, I think we're at 22933. Note that the files on
files.squeak.org are only updated once a day (provided that nothing goes wrong).
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
On 2024-01-03T23:19:53+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote:
Hi Christoph,
On 02-Jan-24 9:28:51 PM,
christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
wrote:
Hi Jaromir,
> In the new Trace debugger you end up with the
#cannotReturn:
context as if the computation just ran until the end.
Hm, I cannot reproduce this. If I step through ^2 and then
step
through again, I land in Context>>terminateTo:. Are you using
the
latest version of trunk and TraceDebugger?
Sorry, that must have been an image before the latest update. In
a
fresh, latest image it works as you describe.
However - and forgive me if this is some kind of problem at my
end too -
I'm observing this:
I downloaded a fresh image 22929, installed the Trace debugger,
turned
off the tree view and tried to run this example:
[[self halt. ^ 1] on: BlockCannotReturn do: [:ex | ex resume] ]
fork
The exact steps are:
- do it in workspace
- select Doit context (second from top)
- switch to Trace debugger
- click step Over
and this just happened:
The weird thing is next time I open the same image again, nothing
bad
can happen many times but all of a sudden it happens again.
A few times I also saw this weird error pop up:
In this case I used another example: [[true ifTrue: [self halt. ^ 1]] on: BlockCannotReturn do: [:ex |
ex
resume] ] fork
What could cause such intermittent failures? I tried downloading
a new
image again but the same happens.
I hope I'm not wasting your time with something happening just at
my
end. The only irregular thing I noticed is it's difficult to
install or
update the baseline the same github cache issue I had when I
installed
Squot. The installation fails a few times before it goes through successfully.
Thanks! best, Jaromir
However, you currently end up in #cannotReturn: when stepping
beyond
the Processor activeProcesssuspend in the bottom context of a
process
using the TraceDebugger. This is because other than the normal debugger, the TraceDebugger does not yet honor the
suspended/terminated
state of the interrupted process. Maybe it should ...
The TraceDebugger now honors the suspended/terminated state of
the
debugged process so you cannot step beyond Processor activeProcesssuspend any longer, like in a regular debugger.
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk
On 2024-01-02T19:53:31+01:00, christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
Hi Jaromir,
thanks again for your messages, please keep them coming! And
squeak-dev is totally the right place for them IMO. :-)
Regarding the openPath bug: Thanks for the pointer, I have
uploaded
Collections-ct.1061 to the inbox which would fix it. However, it
is a
bit surprising that PluggableTreeItemNode>>#asString (and also Context>>#printString by the way) answers texts not strings, so
maybe
this needs further discussion.
> Or when you open an inspector on a context the context's
state gets
frozen in time and won't change when you proceed debugging -
another
groundbreaking change!
Yes, these "snapshot inspectors" (or also "snapshot
explorers") have
their pros and cons. As a con, I often found it inconvenient
that I
cannot watch the changing state of certain objects in extra
windows as
I am stepping through a TraceDebugger. But always updating these inspectors depending on the current time of the TraceDebugger
might be
confusing as well because there is no clear visual connection
... It's
an unsolved UX problem for me. But I'm glad they work well for
you. :-)
If you have any better ideas, let me know!
Regarding your questions about the behavior of code when
being run in
the TraceDebugger:
> If I turn off the preference "Show call tree in
TraceDebugger" am I
right to expect the Trace debugger behavior would be equivalent
to the
traditional one?
Yes and no. :-) First, the representation of the traced
program in
the TraceDebugger (stack vs tree) does not influence the
execution
semantics of the program. It's just that in rare situations with irregular context switches, the tree model is currently unable
to
locate certain contexts at certain points in time. That's why
these
contexts are skipped as you step through a program in the
TraceDebugger
with the context tree activated.
Second, code that is simulated inside the TraceDebugger is
(or
should) behave exactly as the same code being run in a normal
simulator
(like when you step through an expression or use Context class>>#runSimulated:). There are however two exceptions to this invariant:
(1) Bugs in the simulation engine: We (that's an including
we!) have
been working on fixing these bugs so that all code can behave
exactly
then same when being simulated. Still, there are some open known
(and
likely further unknown) issues (e.g., you cannot simulate a
simulator
which is executing a failed primitive: Context runSimulated:
[Context
runSimulated: [#() tryPrimitive: 60 withArgs: #(0)]]), so this delightful quest is still going on. :-)
(2) Context primitives 195-197 (#findNextUnwindContextUpTo:,
#terminateTo:, #findNextHandlerContextStarting) always fail when
the
context is executed in SimulationStudio (which also includes the TraceDebugger): This is due to the nature of SimulationStudio,
which
subclasses from Context (see SimulationContext) to make parts of
the
simulated code execution customizable. The VM, however, is not
prepared
to the existence of such subclass objects of Context and will
always
fail when these primitives are invoked on an object that is not
exactly
of the class Context, so the methods execute their fallback code instead. So this is a visible difference in the execution
semantics
between normal VM and SimulationStudio/TraceDebugger.
However, now you might say: This makes sense when I evaluate
Simulator debug: [thisContext findNextHandlerContextStarting]
because
when I inspect thisContext in that debugger, it shows a subclass
of
Context; but when I do [thisContext
findNextHandlerContextStarting]
debugTrace, thisContext actually is an instance of Context
itself, so
how can the VM detect this? And you would be right, because when
you
*inspect* a context in the TraceDebugger, it is a Context
instance
indeed, but not when you actually *execute* it in the
TraceDebugger, as
you can see when you evaluate [thisContext class] debugTrace ...
The
explanation for that lies in TDBTrace>>#enableSimulatorDuring:,
but to
cut it short, we convert all (non-dead) Context instances from
the
TraceDebugger's tree to a subclass of SimulationContext
temporarily
during each step to achieve two things: First, to not confuse
observant
users like you with the existence of these subclasses (well,
maybe that
did not work too well), and second, to make it possible to
resume from
a trace debugger at any point, which will execute the process in
the
regular VM; and as noted before, the VM can only handle Context instances, so it would fail when scheduling the process
otherwise (you
can actually observe that when trying to proceed from Simulator
debug:
[thisContext findNextHandlerContextStarting]). (Fun fact: Not
all VMs
handle Context subinstances that carefully: SqueakJS will
seriously mix
up the context/object layout, while TruffleSqueak will terminate
as
soon as you instantiate (!) any subinstance of Context, so I'm
gladful
that the OpenSmalltalk VM is as tolerant as it is.)
I hope this was a bit interesting to you!
> Example: do step through to the [^2] block and then step
through
again
> > [^2] ensure: [] > > Traditionally, you end up in the unwind block. > In the new Trace debugger you end up with the
#cannotReturn:
context as if the computation just ran until the end.
Hm, I cannot reproduce this. If I step through ^2 and then
step
through again, I land in Context>>terminateTo:. Are you using
the
latest version of trunk and TraceDebugger? However, you
currently end
up in #cannotReturn: when stepping beyond the Processor
activeProcess
suspend in the bottom context of a process using the
TraceDebugger.
This is because other than the normal debugger, the
TraceDebugger does
not yet honor the suspended/terminated state of the interrupted process. Maybe it should ...
Thanks for your thoughts and I'm always happy about more! :-)
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
On 2024-01-01T19:25:04+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote:
> Hi Christoph, > > sorry, a follow-up question :) > > If I turn off the preference "Show call tree in
TraceDebugger" am I
> right to expect the Trace debugger behavior would be
equivalent to
the
> traditional one? > > In other words: if I run the traditional debugger and the
Trace one
side
> by side, should they display analogous steps? > > In the other message I wrote about a different way to
simulate
primitive
> calls. > > However, I've noticed other irregularities so that's why I
started
> wondering maybe my assumption was wrong and the Trace
debugger is
> designed to present the simulation differently. Please
advise.
> > Example: do step through to the [^2] block and then step
through
again
> > [^2] ensure: [] > > Traditionally, you end up in the unwind block. > In the new Trace debugger you end up with the
#cannotReturn:
context as
> if the computation just ran until the end. > > Is this expected? (My guess is it isn't but can't figure
out why)
> > Thanks again, > Jaromir > > > > > > On 01-Jan-24 3:31:29 PM, "Jaromir Matas"
<mail(a)jaromir.net>
wrote:
> > >Hi Christoph, > > > >Is it ok that I ask questions about the new debugger? What
would
be the
> >best format for such a "Q&A" - here or perhaps within a
topic on
> >squeak-smalltalk/squeak-object-memory? I don't expect a
flood of
> >questions but to get a bit familiar with your debugger it
would
help
> >tremendously to be able to ask right away instead of
trudging
through
> >the code/help :) The code usually helps to understand
**how**
things
> >work, the mechanics, but rarely **why**, the intentions. > > > > > you can also turn off the preference "Show call tree in > >TraceDebugger" > > > >Thanks, that helps to familiarize myself with the new
functionalities
> >"step-by-step", and not be overwhelmed by all the might of
the
call
> >tree :) Being able to go back is already a hell of an
improvement!
Or
> >when you open an inspector on a context the context's
state gets
frozen
> >in time and won't change when you proceed debugging -
another
> >groundbreaking change! > > > >Question: > >In the traditional debugger, when you step into a
primitive, the
> >primitive gets executed and the simulation moves over the
primitive
> >call. The Trace debugger, however, starts executing the
fallback
code
> >of the primitive call - why is that? > > > >Screenshot after step into #terminateTo: > > > > > > > >Thanks again, > >Jaromir > > > >On 31-Dec-23 2:16:32 AM,
christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
> >wrote: > > > >>Hi Jaromir, > >> > >>thanks a lot for trying it out!! Your feedback means a
lot to me.
:-)
> >> > >>Indeed you hit a pretty unfortunate example. The
TraceDebugger is
not
> >>ready for all your clever investigations regarding
non-local
returns
> >>and unwinding. ;-) In fact, your example reveals another
limitation
> >>that I forgot to mention in the announcement, which
regards
programs
> >>with irregular context switches - e.g.,
generators/coroutines,
but
> >>also non-local returns through unwind contexts. This is
because
the
> >>TraceDebugger stores and displays all method invocations
in a
tree,
> >>but in the case of manual context switches, there is no
single
global
> >>tree - its structure would change over the execution
time, and
when
> >>selecting a method invocation, it is not even clear to
what
parent
> >>(sender) it would belong, as there might be multiple. The
current
> >>solution is to display the tree from the perspective of
the stack
at
> >>the viewed point in time (see also the '@ <timeIndex>' in
the
window
> >>title), so it looks corrupted while stepping through > >>Context>>#terminateTo: as the stack is being manipulated.
(You
would
> >>notice the same in a normal debugger if you turned off
the
optional
> >>primitive 196 in this method - for SimulationContexts
this method
> >>always uses the fallback code.) > >> > >>Nevertheless, I have pushed some changes that should
allow you to
step
> >>out of #terminateTo: again. (You can update the
TraceDebugger
from the
> >>window menu icon at the right top, like all of my tools.)
At some
> >>point there will no method be displayed, but you can just
step
further
> >>and eventually return back to the starting point. :-) If
you want
to,
> >>you can also turn off the preference "Show call tree in
TraceDebugger"
> >>to make the TraceDebugger look more like a normal
debugger, which
also
> >>solves the context switches issue. But in general -
unless you
are
> >>debugging unwinding stuff - I would not recommend that as
it
removes
> >>one important strength of the TraceDebugger. :-) > >> > >>But again, this is really not a prime example for the
TraceDebugger.
> >>Better use it to explore how the simulator works. :-) For
example, you
> >>could do the following: > >> > >>[ContextTest debug: #testBlockCannotReturn] debugTrace. > >> > >>And in that trace debugger, you could select the start
method,
press
> >>Cmd + f(ind), and type "return:from:" to investigate the
behavior
of
> >>your solution there again, etc. > >> > >>Thanks for your comments! This was a good chance for me
to sort
some
> >>things out! :-) > >> > >>Best, > >>Christoph > >> > >>--- > >>Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk > >>https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk > >> > >>On 2023-12-30T19:04:07+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Christoph, > >> > > >> > This indeed sounds like a GREAT idea! I look forward
to seeing
your
> >>use > >> > cases to build the right intuition. > >> > > >> > In the meantime I've tried to debug/trace this example
I've
been
> >>working > >> > with lately: > >> > > >> > [^2] ensure: [] > >> > > >> > If I start the debugger, hit `trace it` and then `step
over`,
it
> >>stops > >> > at Context>>terminate and the view gets corrupted (the
initial
part
> >>of > >> > the trace is hidden and can't be made visible unless
clicking
on
> >>some of > >> > the pink lines - but not every line does it...) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > If I then continue stepping over it ends up with some
kind of
error:
> >> > > >> > > >> > Maybe this is just an unfortunate example... Or maybe
I'm just
doing
> >> > something wrong... > >> > > >> > At any rate - THANKS for your effort!! > >> > > >> > > >> > On 30-Dec-23 4:37:28 PM, > >>christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > >Thanks for the reply, Dave! I will try to post one or
two
concrete
> >>use > >> > >cases about the TraceDebugger in the next couple of
days, so
stay
> >> > >tuned. :-) > >> > > > >> > >Best, > >> > >Christoph > >> > > > >> > >--- > >> > >Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk > >> > >https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk > >> > > > >> > >On 2023-12-29T11:01:10-06:00, lewis(a)mail.msen.com
wrote:
> >> > > > >> > > > This sounds like really interesting work! I love
the idea
of
> >>being > >> > > > able to interactively go back in "oops, I‘ve
stepped too
far,
> >>let‘s > >> > > > start all over again" situations. It will probably
take
some
> >>time for > >> > > > me and others to wrap our heads around the things
you have
done,
> >>so > >> > > > don't be surprised if you get a delayed response
to this
> >>announcement > >> > > > :-) > >> > > > > >> > > > Congratulations! > >> > > > Dave > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Dec 29 2023 at 01:42:16 AM +0100, > >> > > > christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
wrote:
> >> > > > > Hi all! > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I‘m very excited to announce a project today
that we
have been
> >> > > > > working on over the past two years: The
*TraceDebugger*
[1] is
> >>a > >> > >new > >> > > > > back-in-time/time-travel/omniscient debugging
tool for
Squeak
> >>that > >> > > > > allows you to record past method activations and
states
during
> >> > > > > execution and explore them later. > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > Metacellonew > >> > > > > baseline:'TraceDebugger'; > >> > > > >
repository:'github://hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger';
> >> > > > > /"repository: > >> > > > >
'github://hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger:squeak60';"//"for
> >>Squeak > >> > > > > 6.0"/ > >> > > > > get; > >> > > > > load. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > **What can it do? (Features)** > >> > > > > > >> > > > > - *Record all method activations and historic
states:*
> >>Normally > >> > >step > >> > > > > through a program in the debugger while
automatically
> >>recording its > >> > > > > execution. > >> > > > > - *Replay execution of a traced program:*
Navigate
through all
> >> > > > > method invocations using the /*context tree*/ or
the
/*Step
> >> > >Back/Step > >> > > > > Forward*/ buttons (to avoid these "oops, I‘ve
stepped
too far,
> >> > > > > let‘s start all over again" situations). > >> > > > > - *Interact with historic states:*
Inspect/explore
snapshots
> >>of > >> > > > > objects or send them any message. > >> > > > > - *State-centric debugging using the ***/History > >>Explorer*/**:* > >> > > > > Gather, explore, and visualize all changes to an > >>object/expression > >> > > > > over the recorded time ("When did this > >> > >variable/collection/screenshot > >> > > > > change?"). > >> > > > > - *Additional navigation tools* for searching
and
filtering
> >>the > >> > > > > context tree. > >> > > > > - *Focus on interactivity:* No hours of
recording, no
GBs of
> >>mem > >> > > > > consumption - at least for common small to
medium
programs.
> >> > > > > - *UI resembles the classic Smalltalk debugger:*
You'll
find
> >>your > >> > > > > familiar stepping buttons, code browsing tools,
inspectors,
> >>and > >> > > > > shortcuts - plus more. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The TraceDebugger is a general-purpose tool and
not tied
to
> >> > > > > particular domains. In the past months, we have
successfully
> >>used > >> > >it > >> > > > > to understand several bugs and interaction
patterns in
the
> >>Trunk > >> > > > > (Morphic layout/rendering, compiler/decompiler,
code
> >>simulation, > >> > > > > …). The tool is also self-supporting, so you can
debug a
> >> > > > > TraceDebugger from another TraceDebugger. :-) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > **What can‘t it do (yet)? (Limitations and
future
work)**
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > - *High performance:* While (sufficiently) fast
enough
for
> >>most > >> > > > > small to medium workloads, tracing very compute-
or
> >>mem-intensive > >> > > > > operations may require more time (ex.:
compiler/decompiler
> >> > > > > invocation: <1s, HTTPS request: <10s, tool
building:
<5m,
> >>complex > >> > > > > rendering: minutes up to hours). > >> > > > > - *Not a dataflow analyzer:* The TraceDebugger
does not
track
> >> > > > > dataflow events (e.g., argument passing) but
only state
> >>changes. > >> > > > > - *No tracing of external states/events* for
FFI/OSProcess or
> >> > >custom > >> > > > > VM modules. > >> > > > > - *No support for advanced language concepts*
such as
identity
> >> > > > > forwarding/write barriers. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > **How does it work? (Implementation)** > >> > > > > > >> > > > > In one sentence: To record message sends and
side
effects, we
> >> > > > > decorate the execution of certain bytecodes with
tracing
> >>extensions > >> > > > > by modifying the code simulation using
SimulationStudio
[2].
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > In one paragraph: The program is executed in a
specialized
> >>code > >> > > > > simulator that overrides instructions for
sending
messages
> >>(e.g., > >> > > > > send, superSend) and for performing side-effects
(e.g.,
> >> > >popIntoRcvr, > >> > > > > primitiveAtPut, push). All message sends are
recorded in
a
> >>tree and > >> > > > > all changed object slots are stored in a sparse
time-dependent
> >> > >memory > >> > > > > structure before they are overwritten. For
time-traveling, the
> >>tree > >> > > > > is traversed using a cursor. For accessing
historic
objects, a
> >> > >proxy > >> > > > > evaluates all messages sent to an object in
another
> >>specialized > >> > > > > simulator (retracing simulator) that emulates
historic
states
> >>for > >> > >the > >> > > > > requested point in time by forwarding read
primitives
(e.g.,
> >> > > > > pushRcvr, primitiveAt) to the recorded memory.
For
gathering
> >>state > >> > > > > changes in the History Explorer efficiently, the
query
is
> >>evaluated > >> > > > > in a range retracing simulator with
vectorization and
fork
> >> > >semantics. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > In academic terms: We have published two papers
about
the
> >> > > > > TraceDebugger that provide further details about
its
> >>implementation > >> > > > > and its applications for program exploration,
"Object-Centric
> >> > > > > Time-Travel Debugging: Exploring Traces of
Objects" [3]
and
> >> > > > > "Time-Awareness in Object Exploration Tools:
Toward In
Situ
> >> > > > > Omniscient Debugging" [4]. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > In Smalltalk: Just check out the code base and
explore
it by
> >> > > > > yourself! The class comments in TraceDebugger > >> > >code://TraceDebugger > >> > > > > and TDBCursor code://TDBCursor should provide
good
starting
> >> > >points. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > **How can I use it?** > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Please try it out and report feedback! The
TraceDebugger
> >>supports > >> > > > > the latest Squeak Trunk and Squeak 6.0. You can
either
> >>download a > >> > > > > prepared all-in-one bundle on GitHub: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger/releases
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > Or you can install it into your own image using
Metacello:
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > Metacellonew > >> > > > > baseline:'TraceDebugger'; > >> > > > >
repository:'github://hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger';
> >> > > > > /"repository: > >> > > > >
'github://hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger:squeak60';"//"for
> >>Squeak > >> > > > > 6.0"/ > >> > > > > get; > >> > > > > load. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > To get started, just open a normal debugger
(e.g., by
> >>selecting an > >> > > > > expression and pressing Cmd+Shift+D to debug it)
and
then
> >>press the > >> > > > > "Trace It" button on the right. There‘s also
some pretty
> >>detailed > >> > > > > documentation in the Help Browser <code://
TraceDebugger
> >>showHelp> > >> > > > > that covers everything you should know. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > My goal is to improve convenience and provide a
useful
tool
> >>for the > >> > > > > community, so I‘m very excited to hear your
impressions,
> >>ideas, and > >> > > > > thoughts. Here, on GitHub, or in a private
message.
Let‘s have
> >>a > >> > > > > great discussion! :-) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Best, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Christoph (and Marcel) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > PS: Props to Eliot who brought up the original
idea of
> >>"subclassing > >> > > > > from Context" for other reasons four years ago.
[5]
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger
> >> > > > > [2]
https://github.com/LinqLover/SimulationStudio
> >> > > > > [3] Christoph Thiede, Marcel Taeumel, and Robert
Hirschfeld.
> >>2023. > >> > > > > Object-Centric Time-Travel Debugging: Exploring
Traces
of
> >>Objects. > >> > > > > https://doi.org/10.1145/3594671.3594678 In
/Companion
> >>Proceedings > >> > > > > of the 7th International Conference on the Art,
Science,
and
> >> > > > > Engineering of Programming/ (/<Programming>'23
Companion/),
> >>March > >> > > > > 13–17, 2023, Tokyo, Japan. ACM, New York, NY,
USA, 7
pages.
> >>DOI: > >> > > > > 10.1145/3594671.3594678 > >>https://doi.org/10.1145/3594671.3594678. > >> > > > > PDF:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3594671.3594678
> >> > > > > [4] Christoph Thiede, Marcel Taeumel, and Robert
Hirschfeld.
> >>2023. > >> > > > > Time-Awareness in Object Exploration Tools:
Toward In
Situ
> >> > >Omniscient > >> > > > > Debugging.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622758.3622892 In
> >> > > > > /Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGPLAN
International
Symposium
> >>on New > >> > > > > Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on
Programming and
> >>Software/ > >> > > > > (/Onward! '23/), October 25–27, 2023, Cascais,
Portugal.
ACM,
> >>New > >> > > > > York, NY, USA, 14 pages. DOI:
10.1145/3622758.3622892
> >> > > > > https://doi.org/10.1145/3622758.3622892. PDF: > >> > > > >
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3622758.3622892
> >> > > > > [5] > >> > > > > > >> > > >>
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2019-October/204803.html
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > --- > >> > > > > /Sent from//Squeak Inbox Talk > >> > > > >