Hi David,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:01 AM, David T. Lewis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lewis@mail.msen.com">lewis@mail.msen.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:02:17PM +0300, Igor Stasenko wrote:<br>
> Dear all,<br>
><br>
> i would really like to finish an integration of new finalization.<br>
> But this requires releasing a new VMs for all platforms.<br>
><br>
> If you think, we're done with VM-side part, then lets proceed with<br>
> releasing new VMs, so we could start using new feature.<br>
<br>
</div>One thing I want to ask before proceeding too far: I made a large<br>
number of small changes in VMMaker-dtl.173 and VMMaker-dtl.174. These<br>
are to ompile a VM for either 32-bit or 64-bit image from a single<br>
generated code base.<br>
<br>
Do these changes cause problems for anyone else? Especially, do they<br>
make COG integration difficult? Or any other VM development projects<br>
that are relying on VMMaker not being changed too much?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The Cog changes are substantial and any additional changes to the base VMMaker for 64-bit will likely not add to the difficulty of the merge. We'll have to go back to the common ancestor of current Squeak VMMaker and Cog and sift out fixes from new functionality, and I expect it to take some effort. So please don't worry about the effect on Cog and keep making improvements.</div>
<div><br></div><div>best</div><div>Eliot </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I don't expect this to be a problem, but I don't want to assume it<br>
without asking.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>