new image format

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Oct 20 20:21:15 UTC 2005


Most people who looked at these changes seemed to dislike the fact that 
the model exposed stack segments directly to the user. There seemed to 
be general consensus that a VM might do such an optimization under the 
hoods but that it shouldn't expose it to the user to keep the conceptual 
model (liked frames) simple.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
> Tim Rowledge wrote on Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:41:31 -0700
> 
>>Squeak is about 10 years old. Time to move from toddler to pre- 
>>schooler at least. Yes, it will mean a break in being able to run old  
>>images on new VMs. So what; old VMs will still be there. The  
>>sourcecode is still on SVN.
> 
> 
> I guess this is a good time to ask about Anthony Hannan's "image version
> 4 format" work (http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/VI4). Bryce Kampjes
> mentioned incompatibilities as the reason why this is no longer being
> considered for inclusion in Squeak, but reading all the documentation
> and scanning quickly through the sources the only thing I noticed was
> that the needed debugger changes were not finished. Am I missing
> something?
> 
> -- Jecel
> P.S.: from the VI4 documentation -
> You should see a general speed improvement of about 25%.  Try running
> macroBenchmarks #6 in this image versus a 3.2 image (the other
> macroBenchmarks are not comparable because they involve compiler,
> context, or interpreter code, which have changed).  Also, in '0
> tinyBenchmarks' you should see about a 30% improvement in bytecode speed
> and a 75% improvement in send speed.  Enjoy!!
> 
> 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list