2008/11/11 Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>:
> btw, concerning failures to allocate memory (and therefore primitive
> failure when building up the complex oop).
> An allocation followed by  #storePointer:ofObject:withValue: .
> If you take a look, there is no checks if object is valid or having
> enough slots for storing value at given offset.
> So, in case if allocation fails, and return invalid object (or
> non-object), there is 100% guarantee that it will corrupt object
> memory.
> So, what the difference between corrupting object memory and
> corrupting the stack?
> Btw the latter case can be detected much faster than first one.
>
>
oh, wait, i just checked: allocation never fails.
If it fails, VM is bailing out immediately. :)
In this case, i insist that, if carefully written, primitives could
use the argument/receiver slots in stack for building up thier complex
oops as response.

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.