[squeak-dev] unloadReloadablePackages

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at gmail.com
Mon Dec 30 13:41:24 UTC 2013


On 30 December 2013 13:21, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 30.12.2013, at 14:18, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30 December 2013 12:47, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30.12.2013, at 12:05, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 December 2013 23:35, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 08:02:51PM +0000, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>>>>> On 29 December 2013 19:34, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Squeakers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I give up.
>>>>>>> For roughly 6 hours I try to shrink my image using
>>>>>>>       Smalltalk unloadReloadablePackages
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It simply does not work currently.
>>>>>>> I have the said trunk image (Squeak4.5-13148#712) (NameVersion-Update#CIJob)
>>>>>>> but with the obsoletes removed as I explained a few emails ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But to no avail.
>>>>>>> * Sometimes (!) ReleaseBuilder retains some obsoletes.
>>>>>>> (removing the Obsoletes some time later with fixObsoleteReferences works, but
>>>>>>>  mostly not during unload)
>>>>>>> * same for VersionNumber-bla
>>>>>>> * SMLoader always retains obsoletes
>>>>>>> * Services-Base itches itself:
>>>>>>> When its ServiceRegistry's #isInteractive was unloaded,
>>>>>>> ServiceRegistry gets called again and calls #isInteractive
>>>>>>> on its current, resulting in an DNU.
>>>>>>> Issuing
>>>>>>>       Smalltalk at: #SystemChangeNotifier ifPresent: [:scn | scn
>>>>>>>               uniqueInstance noMoreNotificationsFor: ServiceRegistry].
>>>>>>> manually works, but not as a #preambleOfRemoval.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it sounds like some packages' unload/reloads aren't being tested,
>>>>>> which is why they've now broken. I realise you've now given up :), but
>>>>>> did your explorations lead you through any #unload implementations?
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is not a matter of testing. It never worked in the first place, so
>>>>> it is an imcomplete implementation, not a bug.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's far off from being right though. I think Tobias has
>>>> simply found a bug: when an MCPackage unloads, it should run the
>>>> class-side #unload methods for any classes it contains, just like
>>>> loading runs the #initialize methods after loading the definitions.
>>>
>>> It does, when unloading the class definition
>>> (which subsequently calls Smalltalk>>#removeFromSystem: (or so)
>>> which in turn calls #unload on the class before removing) but too
>>> late, IMHO.
>>> The problem is, simply executing it at the beginning does not help
>>> because #unload would be called twice then…
>>
>> Yes, but it's useless to call it then, because the things that it
>> calls are unloaded already. Unless I completely misunderstood what
>> you'd said?
>>
>
> Yep, thats why unload couldn’t be called, because its gone already :(
>
>> Ah, and the calling-twice problem isn't strictly Monticello's fault,
>> is it? #unload gets called by Class >> #removeFromSystem:. And
>> #removeFromSystemUnlogged doesn't help, because the unload still gets
>> called.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>
>> I suppose if Monticello was smart enough to figure out that every
>> method definition for class Foo was being unloaded, and then Foo too,
>> so it need just #removeFromSystem: the class, then we wouldn't have
>> this problem.
>
>> Something like, in MCPackageLoader >> #basicLoad, in "Pass #4: Remove
>> the obsolete methods"
>>
>> removals do: [:ea |
>>    ea isClassDefinition ifTrue: [ea unload]
>>   "Check the remaining removals to see if they still need to be done:
>> no point removing a method from a class that's just been removed"
>>    (ea isMethodDefinition and: [ea actualClass notNil]) ifTrue: [ea unload]].
>>
>> Something like that, at any rate. The idea being that, like with
>> loading, we need to do something with the classes before we do things
>> with the methods.
>
> Problem here: are all system notifications sent for each method to be
> removed?

I figured there'd be loads of things I didn't think of, which is why I
hedged with "something like that" :) You're right. The above won't
send the notifications for these removed methods, because Environment
>> #forgetClass:logged: only notifies of the class removal. But then,
this is what happens when you remove a class normally. If we want to
start notifying of method removal on class removal, we should change
Behavior >> #obsolete to do the notifying.

frank

> Best
>         -Tobias


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list