I did not follow carefully but marcus and math are using the new  
compiler daily. Now I think that they do not use/publish on squeakmap.
Mathieu fixed (all or most of the decompiling problems with nested  
blocks).

I asked him to reply.
Our goal is to make sure that NewCompiler is working (they fixed the  
poor error handling and decompilation so that we can really use it).  
Normally marcus recompiled all the image with the NewCompiler as a  
simple tests and if I recall correctly it works.

Stef

On 19 déc. 07, at 08:06, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Philippe Marschall wrote:
>> The compiler itself works and can be loaded into 3.9 without  
>> problems.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't confirm the "working without problems" part  
> in 3.9. For testing the speed I was copying class Object and it  
> barfed halfways through in #copyTwoLevel in a perfectly valid  
> expression:
>
> class isVariable ifTrue:[
>   index _ self basicSize.
>   [index > 0] whileTrue:[
>     newObject basicAt: index put: (self basicAt: index) shallowCopy.
>     index _ index - 1]"xxxxx Argument expected ->xxxxx"].
>
> (note: you can just select the expression in a workspace and doIt  
> if you have compileUseNewCompiler enabled; it'll complain right  
> away) This is very strange and the error message makes little sense  
> to me - I tried adding a period because perhaps it was expecting a  
> message to the block but that doesn't do it. Has anyone tried to  
> simply recompile the entirety of 3.9 to see if that works or not?  
> I've been using 3.9-final-7067 for my test with the latest  
> published Squeakmap releases for AST and NewCompiler. If there is a  
> better version to use, please let me know.
>
> [BTW, there are many other obscure errors that happen when I simply  
> remove the offending code and continue to compile. Ultimately it  
> appears to die somewhere unrelated at first glance but since this  
> only happens when using compileUseNewCompiler I'm pretty sure it's  
> related to some NewCompiler issues]
>
>> Error messages are much improved and unlike your standard SmaCC error
>> messages. Performance is lower. There is a lot of work going on in  
>> the
>> decompiler and I don't know the exact state of this.
>
> Nice to hear about the error messages. I hadn't tried the compiler  
> in a while but the above really shows that error messages really  
> have greatly improved.
>
> Concerning speed: When doing an [Object2 compileAll] timeToRun  
> (Object2 being the partial copy of class Object that NewCompiler  
> was able to hand me) I ended up with 1444 msecs for Compiler and  
> 4020 msecs for NewCompiler. Unless I'm mistaken this is an  
> improvement over the last version I tried which was roughly 4x  
> slower (this is still 2.8x slower but it's a definitive improvement).
>
>> You should ask Marcus about what the current status exactly is. Or  
>> Klaus.
>
> It would be a big step if it were possible to recompile Squeak  
> successfully and perhaps even bytecode-identically. Being able to  
> generate an identical version of the method would allow people to  
> trivially verify the correct functioning of NewCompiler.
>
>>> And, do you know of any energy focused on improving the existing  
>>> alternatives?
>> What alternatives?
>
> The compiler that's actually being used. The one that's 3x  
> faster ;-) If NewCompiler worked properly I'd be actually quite  
> tempted to just adopt the closure solution to the current compiler  
> since it's smaller, faster, and well-established.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>