Hi David,

    Re hasBreakpoint, IIRC BreakpointManager is in System, so the right thing is that the ^false version is in the Kernel package but that it is overridden by the ^BreakpointManager methodHasBreakpoint: self version in System.  I think I failed in achieving this in 5.0.

_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 6:01 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:31:09PM -0400, David T. Lewis wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:05:39PM -0400, David T. Lewis wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 07:55:51PM -0400, David T. Lewis wrote:
>>>> For squeak4.6, this fixes the bug that Craig reported on vm-dev
>>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2015-October/019562.html
>>>> 
>>>> I also see at least one mcz in the squeak46 repository that is empty, apparently
>>>> originally loaded from trunk for the release image, but somehow copied with
>>>> errors from trunk to squeak46.
>>>> 
>>>> I fixed System-topa.753 by copying the good one in trunk into squeak46. There
>>>> may be a few more bad mcz files in squeak46. I'll fix them as I spot them.
>>> 
>>> Compiler-eem.304 and Collections-topa.638 were also empty in the squeak46 repo,
>>> so I copied the good ones from trunk to squeak46.
>> 
>> I hope I am not doing something stupid here. I wanted to fix the recreateSpecialObjectsArray
>> bug that remained in the squeak46 repo, and in doing so noticed some empty MCZ
>> packages in that repo. I presume that this is an error, some artifact of copying
>> them from trunk during the 4.6/5.0 release process. So I fixed (?) this by
>> copying the good (not empty) MCZ files from trunk to squeak46.
>> 
>> All is well, except that I now have a dirty package in Kernel after doing an
>> updateFromServer. The conflicting method is CompiledMethod>>hasBreakpoint, which
>> is one that was moved around and refactored in the later trunk development.
>> 
>> Before I do anything dangerous to try to "fix" this (after all, hasBreakpoint
>> will hang the system if it goes missing), can someone (Chris?) please confirm
>> that those packages were *not* supposed to be empty, and that the good copies
>> from trunk would be the right thing to have in squeak46?
> 
> And I guess that the related question would be - for a fully updated Squeak 4.6
> image, what is the correct implementation of CompiledMethod>>hasBreakpoint ?
> 
> Is it this:
> 
>  CompiledMethod>>hasBreakpoint
>      ^ false
> 
> 
> Or this:
> 
>  CompiledMethod>>hasBreakpoint
>      ^BreakpointManager methodHasBreakpoint: self
> 
> I think that the former version is the pre-Spur implementation, and the
> latter came from the Spur transition in trunk Kernel-cmm.936.
> 
> I note also that WrappedBreakpoint>>hasBreakpoint just answers true in
> squeak46 so I am guessing the corresponding CompiledMethod>>hasBreakpoint
> would just answer false.
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave
> 
>