On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 3:15 PM tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On 2021-01-11, at 3:00 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
>
> > V1 would be the 1996 one then
> >
> > +1
> > V3 might be the closure-supporting one (which year was that?)
>
> Except Dan was talking V3 back in '99


Do you mean "3.x"? That was in the Squeak 2.x era and I think he was
talking about Squeak versions.

We're trying to find a justification for calling the "old" VMs "V3",
independent of the Squeak releases (or SqueakV3.sources which
unfortunately uses V3 in a completely different sense)

I'd personally prefer to get rid of the V3 naming for bytecode/VM-related
entities but as Dave pointed out, it has proliferated due to being
unquestioned for too long. Giving some sensible meaning to "V3" seems like
a good way forward.

and the intent was to include Ian's never-quite-done jit, and from a
> Dan-mail of Oct 19th -
>
> > My revised goal would be...
> >
> >       Increase max context size to 80, and go back to two sizes like 16
> and 80
> >       Merge format bits in behaviors
> >       Merge prim index bits in methods
> >       Your compiled method changes (to which Ian might wish to add an
> extra field)
>

Right, but that version never got adopted.


> The named/external prims was early '99-ish
>

Sounds about right. Does someone have an actual history of the VM, maybe
from SVN? Or were we still using changesets for VM code back then?

- Vanessa -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20210111/da57811c/attachment.html>