On 7 January 2014 17:32, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Don't forget there is no requirement to shrink an image along package
>> boundaries.  Did you try, for example, removing TestCase and all
>> subclasses?  That would cut across package boundaries but so what?
>
>
> I left TestCase in place, but I did try removing all subclasses. That led to
> an emergency evaluator. :-)
>
> It turns out I was mistaken. "Smalltalk unloadReloadablePackages" wasn't
> actually working, it bailed after the first few packages because it calls
> #fixObsoleteReferences after unloading a package, which raises an error if
> there are obsolete classes.
>
> Now that I've got that sorted out, I can reliably shrink to a 11.3MB image
> using the attached script.
>
> There's one oddity in that script. I had to patch
> SystemNavigation>>allObjectsDo:, because I was getting a #shouldNotImplement
> error from the SmallInteger implementation of #nextObject. Somehow, scanning
> the heap got to the end without encountering the sentinel object created at
> the top of #allObjectsDo:, and #nextObject answered 0. I'm not sure what to
> make of that.
>
> Anyway, the script suggests a few fixes that should go into trunk before
> release.

I notice for starters that you #zapMVCProjects _after_ unloading ST80.
Did you move that specifically, or was that just happenstance from
folding #unloadReloadablePackages into the shrink script?

Regarding this guy:

  names do: [:pkgName | (PackageInfo named: pkgName) classes do: [:ea
| ea unload]].
  names do: [:pkgName | Installer mc unload: pkgName].

That's pretty much what I was thinking of doing inside MC's
#basicLoad. I hesitated because it involves sending #unload twice to
every class, and doubted whether general implementations of #unload
were idempotent.

But I guess it must have worked out OK for you during the script?

frank

> Colin