Hi Eliot,
Hi Jaromir,
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 3:57 AM Jaromir Matas <mail at jaromir.net> wrote:
Hi Eliot,
I’d like to test it but the build failed for Windows and Mac; not sure what it means…
Sorry to hear the current “incorrect” suspend behavior has been exploited more than expected in the existing code.
It's not the incorrect suspend behaviour that's being exploited, it's the return value of suspend. Existing code appears to depend on the semaphore/mutex a process is blocked on being answered by suspend.
Yes, that's what I meant, actually :) I understand knowing the list was vital to e.g. recognize whether the process was blocked or runnable (#releaseCriticalSection).
What would you think about having primitiveSuspendV2 return self instead of
any list at all – to make all state changing methods answer consistently (like e.g. VW do)… if the answer expected by the “affected” code base has to be provided by primitiveSuspend anyways.
I don't see this is at all useful. If one isn't interested in the semaphore/mutex return value one does not have to examine it. But there is no way of getting the list once the process has been removed from it other than by having the suspend primitive answer it.
Well yes, it surely is more useful to return something in addition to the powerful side effect :) I was just wondering if it's not a "temptation" to be better avoided. I suggested in another post the list is still available on the suspendedContext's stack should someone really want it. But I'm just inquiring here to satisfy my curiosity, sorry.
So if one isn't interested in the return value simply write something of the form
aProcess suspend; yourself
But if one *is* interested in the result then the primitive better answer it, nbo?
Oh, if there's a use case even with the new primitiveSuspendV2 then no doubt.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
Best,
Jaromir
________________________________ From: Vm-dev vm-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org on behalf of Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 12:33:08 AM To: Open Smalltalk Virtual Machine Development Discussion vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Vm-dev] VM Maker: VMMaker.oscog-eem.3142.mcz