[Vm-dev] Re: Uploaded squeak-vm 3.11.3

[Eliot Miranda]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 28 January 2010 06:38, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:13 PM, K. K. Subramaniam <subbukk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 08:56:07 pm Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> >> > On 27.01.2010, at 05:37, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday 26 January 2010 11:09:26 pm Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> >> > >> Well, there is a source for this of course (in the VMMaker Squeak
> >> > >> package). Generating the C code is a manual, interactive process
> and
> >> > >> requires a running Squeak installation. Making that scriptable is
> >> > >> possible, but so far nobody has done it AFAIK
> >> > >
> >> > > That is because most of the builds so far have been one target
> (which is
> >> > > also the host). Batch builds are needed for multiple variants (e.g
> >> > > debug/release) or when cross-compiling (say to ARM targets).
> >> >
> >> > Ian does batched cross-builds. But the source is still only generated
> once.
> >> >  All targets use the same generated sources.
> >> The generated files are not the "source". To reiterate the issue raised
> in the
> >> bug report -
> >> ---
> >> the file platforms/unix/src/vm/interp.c starts with:
> >>
> >> /* Automatically generated from Squeak on an Array(9 May 2008 11:24:03
> am)
> >> by VMMaker 3.8b6 [...]
> >>
> >> However, I cannot identify the source file for that file. Also,
> >> debian/copyright doesn't contain any hint how this file is generated.
> >
> > Indeed.  In the Teleplace VMs we generate e.g.
> > /* Automatically generated by
> >     CCodeGenerator VMMaker-eem.524 uuid:
> 9b748596-0986-4ca7-ac5b-b7a050a08431
> >    from
> >     SimpleStackBasedCogit VMMaker-eem.524 uuid:
> 9b748596-0986-4ca7-ac5b-b7a050a08431
> >  */
> > static char __buildInfo[] = "SimpleStackBasedCogit VMMaker-eem.524 uuid:
> 9b748596-0986-4ca7-ac5b-b7a050a08431 " __DATE__ ;
> > char *__cogitBuildInfo = __buildInfo;
> >
> > where the UUIDs are those form the Monticello package.  If the package is
> dirty when the source file is output it gains an asterisk:
> > /* Automatically generated by
> >     CCodeGeneratorGlobalStructure * VMMaker-eem.519 uuid:
> 151cad6d-ee56-4458-a45d-a5c53502b5be
> >    from    CoInterpreter * VMMaker-eem.519 uuid:
> 151cad6d-ee56-4458-a45d-a5c53502b5be
> >  */
> > static char __buildInfo[] = "CoInterpreter * VMMaker-eem.519 uuid:
> 151cad6d-ee56-4458-a45d-a5c53502b5be " __DATE__ ;
> > char *__interpBuildInfo = __buildInfo;
> > So we can determine both the Smalltalk source and the version of the
> generator that pushed out the C, or if it was an indeterminate version.
>  This is also available through the system parameter primitive.  Also note
> that tehthedate is the date of compilation, not generation, which should be
> immaterial.
> >
> >> ----
> >> The "source" for this file is in embedded in vmmaker image. The header
> only
> >> states that VMMaker was used as a tool but it is not evident that this
> version
> >> of VMMaker also embeds the "source" for the interpreter (and the
> plugins). I
> >> realize the tool and the sources are all one big blob in Squeak, but we
> still
> >> need to consider interpreter and plugins as separate units during
> builds.
> >>
> >> So the questions that arise for downstream builders are :
> >>
> >>  a) Where is the information about generating this intermediate file
> from the
> >> source? (i.e. tool, makefile, batch script)
> >>  b) What is the license on that particular source unit which was used to
> >> generate this intermediate file? Should all plugins use the same license
> as the
> >> interpreter?
> >>
> >> In a manual process, these are all "in the head" but that doesn't help
> >> downstream builders like Debian. In a batch process these steps are
> recorded
> >> in scripts for anyone to read, follow and modify, if necessary.
> >>
> >> Isn't "generated source" an oxymoron :-)? I would favor getting rid of
> these
> >> files from version control and go directly to filing Slang changesets
> into
> >> VMMaker and translating them on the fly in Makefiles. I would even
> support
> >> writing unix/ and Cross/ in Slang. Let C become the assembly language in
> >> Squeak.
> >
> > Practically it is much more convenient to be able to gather all the C/C++
> files together for a Vm build than it is to start form a set of C/C++ files
> and a Smalltalk source file and a Smalltalk image and a tool.  We keep an
> image containing a VMMaker in svn (in a directory image alongside platforms)
> and generate the vm/plugin tree form that image, updating it when VMMaker or
> a plugin is changed.  So a checking checks in the new source and the new
> image.  But if one wants to build one simply checks out the entire tree and
> builds, instead of having to fire up the VMMaker image.  Once Squeak is
> reliably headlessly scriptable across platforms one might revisit that but
> then you'd introduce a dependency of having to have a working VM to run
> VMMaker to punch out the sources, which could put a damper on developing for
> new platforms.
>
> That's really wrong. Ask yourself, what you would do with those C/C++
> sources, while not having C compiler for new platform?
>

I don't think it's wrong at all.  The current Squeak CVM is entirely
dependent on having a C compiler.  If one doesn't have a C compiler one
can't have a Squeak VM, i's as simple as that.  The platforms tree is C, the
generated source is C.

You have an argument only when the system becomes self-hosting, targeting
either assembler or machine code, and there are a host of other issues
lurking there such as what one uses for debugging, whether one has to
generate debug info in the object code, etc, etc.  But for the current VM a
C compiler is an absolute prerequisite.

Yes! First, you will need to build a compiler binary for target
> platform on a platform where compiler exists and can run, and only
> then you could move inside and use it on new platform to compile
> stuff. So, why it should be different for VM?
>

Go ahead and change it.  But the current VM is based on the availability of
a C compiler and so including the src tree in svn is perfectly reasonable.

Migrating to new platform always means using some tool chain on
> existing platform(s) to generate appropriate bootstrap code/binaries.
> Sure , you can go without it, if you want to fall back to 60-70's era,
> where no common tools existed and you had to work with binary data
> manually and bootstrap from ZERO point. But that would be really
> stupid and we should discourage people from porting VM in such way.
>
> > So while attractive in the abstract I think making the generated sources
> purely an intermediate form is a mistake.  In this case If It Ain't Broke
> Don't Fix It.
> >>
> >> Subbu
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20100129/dfd46a10/attachment.htm