Squat crash on winXP

smallsqueak.net smallsqueak at rogers.com
Fri Feb 20 20:17:05 UTC 2004


Hi Craig,

> 
> > Can the control.image talk to working.image asking it to shrink to
> > something like smallest.image ?
> 
> It's all manual labor when you're down that small... use the remote
> browser and start ripping things out. :)
> 

    Thanks for confirming. So, it's still a black art ;-)

    I can see the advantage of remote shrinking, though. 

    Current major shrink need MVC to work, with remote shrinking 
    that MVC head can be chopped off as well. 

    It's just a matter of sweat, right ?-)

> > What I meant are the cs (or dare I say mcz ;-) for the Squat related
> > classes.
> 
> But those won't run in a mainstream snapshot, 

    That's the whole point.

    To be really useful, IMHO, Squat should be ported to mainstream.

> on a mainstream VM. 

    This should be easy enough, just file in your changeset for the
    interpreter into 3.7 image and generate the interp.c then build
    the VM. Did I miss something ?  
    
> I find people tend to ignore things that don't run, so I don't think it's
> worth the effort. I'd rather people fired up Squat and browsed around
> there.
> 
> > I thought it might help TFNR to have Squeak beheaded ;-).
> 
> Sure, the basic plan is to get everything in the current large snapshot
> divided up into modules which we can load into a smaller snapshot.
> 

    Do control.image, working.image have all the fixes 
    and especially all the cleaning updates that are in 3.7 ?

    Do they have support for package ?

    I love to load a package loader and SM into the minimal.image ;-)

> > I can confirm that it's the image that's causing the problem because
> > the old image run OK with the new flow plugin.
> 
> Well that's weird, because the latest flow plugin only changes how
> clients connect, and "control" doesn't start any clients, only servers.
> 
> > Maybe it's a combination of new control.image and new flow.
> 
> I don't think so, because that's what I tested (and it's the only thing
> worth testing... one should throw away any Squat bits that get
> superceded at this stage of the game).
> 
    
    In that Squat folder, there are just the new bits only.

> If a system comprised of all the latest bits is crashing for you, all I
> can suggest is that you get out the C debugger (ideally with a VM and
> Flow plugin that you built yourself from sources). It works on my win98
> system, which is the only one I can test.
> 

    To be honest, I am really busy now, don't have any time to look at the
    sources. Just quickly playing with whatever that you supplied.

    Thanks for working on Squat.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.
    




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list