About 512 MB changes patch
Klaus D. Witzel
klaus.witzel at cobss.com
Tue Oct 3 05:14:38 UTC 2006
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:18:48 +0200, tim Rowledge wrote:
> On 2-Oct-06, at 5:54 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Hi Tim -
>> As much as I agree with the idea of reworking CompiledMethod in
>> general, it seems to me we shouldn't mix up two otherwise unrelated
> Yes, that is plausible and reasonable; except that I *do* think it is
> way past time to do the CM rework and since to makes it trivial to also
> clean up the source code representation I consider it a nice synergy.
> Sure, we can improve the source code situation by putting a normal oop
> in the properties. That would certainly be better.
> As I said, Klaus is to be congratulated for coming up with a concrete
> proposal. I don't think it cleans up anywhere near enough of the mess,
> but that could be worked on. For example, it appears to me to leave far
> too much in the way of assumptions about the source pointer being an
> encrypted integer for real comfort.
There was only one reason for keeping this intact: the possible clients of
the current source file & pointer machinery. One could get rid of the
latter if all clients where known (and maintainable) by providing a new
FWIW, the situation would be the same if we'd just add one more byte to
the current source pointer "object" in CompiledMethod, except that
migration would be a noop.
> I made a technically simple but organisationally more complex proposal.
Of which I am a strong supporter.
> It is what it is. If people don't like it, they don't like it.
More information about the Squeak-dev