Summary: What do I need to do to build a Linux VM with the new GC
stuff?  Is that possible as things stand?

I'm on a 32 bit platform (Linux/AMD chip).

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 03:06:13PM -0700, John M McIntosh wrote:
> Ok, I had thought that Tim had pushed out the changes for VMMaker  
> that are needed by the source tree updates in april/may timeframe.
> This is not the case.
Good; that clarifies things.

> 
> The 1105 revision point is when Ian started to work on the 32/64 bit  
> logic which needs the VMMaker changes Tim hasn't pushed out yet.
> So if you get the 1105 tree, although I think it might be the 1100  
> revision you  need since that pre-dates Ian's changes.

"So if you get the 1105 tree," what?  The main body of the sentence
seems missing.

> 
> Smalltalk vmVersion 'Squeak3.8gamma of ''24 November 2004'',
> on my working image this right now returns  'Squeak3.8gamma of ''24  
> November 2004'' [latest update: #6548] Squeak VM 3.8.8b2'

I have the same latest update indicated as well.
> 
> where 'Squeak3.8gamma of ''24 November 2004'' [latest update: #6548]  
> is the image identification and update data put into the VM source code
> by VMMaker. This information just indicates which image VMMaker was  
> put  into. 

So Smalltalk vmVersion is not a particularly good way to tell what
version of the vm you are using?  Or it used to be, but is not so
reliable anymore because the different components have been decoupled?
[Oh, you answer that below, and the answer seems to be yes to both
questions.]


>The Squeak VM 3.8.8b2 is the mac carbon VM version number.
So this is not the version given by Smalltalk vmVersion, but is
established by some other convention by the producer(s) of the mac
carbon VM (you?)?  That makes mapping it to other platforms hard.

Judging by the file dates and changelog dates, the VM I have predates
the June or July target you mentioned in the GC work document.

> For the most part, all of the slang code for building the VM comes  
> from the VMMaker package, very little (if any?) from the base image,  

OK, so the VMMaker package includes VMMaker proper and the slang code,
and thus there are not 5 components, as I suspected, but only 4
(VMMaker, image, VM, external sources).  That's a little simpler :)

BTW, the packaging is a little surprising, since VMMaker is logically
distinct from the smalltalk representation of the VM (and the
simulator of same).  I gather that historically the latter preceded
the former.

> so if you
> load into a 3.8 or 3.9 image is immaterial. Historically the slang  
> code was in the base image, so having the image information was  
> useful. Perhaps
> we need to stuff the VMMaker info into the vmversion string too..

Where does this leave me with respect to being able to use your
garbage collection work?  (Maybe that's the missing stuff after the
"if you get the 1105 version?).

It sounds as if that stuff is in later versions of the source code,
and so isn't too approachable while the engine parts are all over the
floor (to borrow Tim's original metaphor).

> 
> On 20-Jul-05, at 2:40 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
> 
> 
> >I originally got interested in building a VM in an attempt to follow
> >John McIntosh's suggestion (July 4 on high CPU useage) to try a newer
> >VM and diagnostic tools.  The instructions for that say to use a VM
> >created in June/July 2005 or later using the latest VMMaker.
> >
> >Unfortunately, revision 1105 is from 19 Mar 2005 according to the log.
> >Probably not coincidentally, that is the date Ian released the version
> >of the VM I am using (3.7-7 in the changelog, though it identifies
> >itself as Smalltalk vmVersion 'Squeak3.8gamma of ''24 November 2004'',
> >consistent with the versioning Lex gave it in the Debian changelog).
> >
> >
> >
>