On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:57 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 06:18:15PM -0800, John M McIntosh wrote:
> >
> > On 15-Feb-09, at 6:06 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> > >Works for me.  When and if the VM is no longer backwards-compatible
> > >(e.g. the Stack VM) one can move to 5.0.
> > >However, I would recommend getting the VM changes into the 4.0 VM as
> > >this will make migrating to image-level closures much easier.  I
> > >believe (John, can you confirm) that John's latest Mac 3.8 beta VMs
> > >have included the closure bytecodes.
> >
> > Well I've not done that (yet) was waiting on Eliot for the latest VM
> > changes before christmas. Then I've been
> > distracted by an iPhone application.
> >
> > I recall David T and I last discussed the issues around the source
> > code changes and how it cheerfully
> > upgrades your image, which then makes it un-run-able  on the raft of
> > VMs one has on one's machine, but
> > I recall we thought we could tie the image version change on save to
> > only happen if in fact the image
> > *uses* the closure bytes code.
>
> Right, Eliot's bytecode changes are fully backward compatible, so they
> can be added to VMMaker without breaking anything. The image version
> numbering change needs to be left out for now, but that's a small issue
> that can be the subject of separate discussion.
>
> Eliot, if you can confirm that the bytecode changes are ready for
> release, and that the license is <whatever>, then I'll volunteer to
> add your bytecode bootstrap changes to the Squeaksource VMMaker project
> and make whatever minor changes are needed to avoid the image numbering
> glitch.


OK, I'll have this done by end of business Tuesday 17th.


>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090215/f4953983/attachment.htm