[Vm-dev] normalSend, specialObjectsArray and VM

[Mariano Martinez Peck]

Hi. I have a related question once again with this topic. I've changed
Interpreter >> normalSend to something like this:


normalSend
    "Send a message, starting lookup with the receiver's class."
    "Assume: messageSelector and argumentCount have been set, and that
    the receiver and arguments have been pushed onto the stack,"
    "Note: This method is inlined into the interpreter dispatch loop."
    | rcvr |
    self inline: true.
    self sharedCodeNamed: 'normalSend' inCase: 131.
    rcvr := self internalStackValue: argumentCount.
    ((self isIntegerObject: rcvr) not and: [hasToTrace])
        ifTrue: [
            self internalTurnOnUsedBit: rcvr.
            ].
    lkupClass := self fetchClassOf: rcvr.
    receiverClass := lkupClass.
    self commonSend.


So...if it is not a SmallInetger and if the flag is on, I turn on a bit.

The question is, if I send a normal message to a normal object. Example:

| anObject |
anObject := MyClass new.
anObject foo

Now...I am sure that "anObject" was marked with the bit. But what about:
a) the compiled method  MyClass >> #foo
b) MyClass

should they be marked?

In other words:

self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject).
    self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject class).
    self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: (anObject class >> #foo)).

     anObject foo.

    self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject).
    self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject class).
    self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: (anObject class >> #foo)).


should all the asserts pass?  I ask because I don't know how CompiledMethods
are executed (they receive a normalSend like any other object?) nor how
class are accessed.

Thanks in advance,

Mariano


On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 11 May 2010 17:40, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks Igor. I could see #class does not the normal way. It was logic
> as it already has the pointer there ;)
> >> >
> >> > Now I wonder...to avoid those special cases, do you think it makes
> sense to intercept in commonSend rather than commonSend ?  or it would be
> the same ?
> >> >
> >> err... commonSend or commonSend? i think it would be the same :)
> >>
> >
> > hahahah sorry, I meant commonSend instead of normalSend.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> the other point, where you can try intercept a send is cache lookup.
> >>
> >
> > internalFindNewMethod  ?
> >
>
> I don't know, maybe :)
>
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mariano
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> > Mariano
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thank you very much.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Mariano
> >> >> >
> >> >> > chers
> >> >> > Eliot
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20101003/1e4fc954/attachment.htm