[Vm-dev] normalSend, specialObjectsArray and VM

[Bert Freudenberg]

What exactly are you trying to do? When do you consider an object to be "used"? 

- Bert -

On 03.10.2010, at 12:12, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:

> Hi. I have a related question once again with this topic. I've changed Interpreter >> normalSend to something like this:
> 
> 
> normalSend
>     "Send a message, starting lookup with the receiver's class."
>     "Assume: messageSelector and argumentCount have been set, and that 
>     the receiver and arguments have been pushed onto the stack,"
>     "Note: This method is inlined into the interpreter dispatch loop."
>     | rcvr |
>     self inline: true.
>     self sharedCodeNamed: 'normalSend' inCase: 131.
>     rcvr := self internalStackValue: argumentCount.
>     ((self isIntegerObject: rcvr) not and: [hasToTrace])
>         ifTrue: [ 
>             self internalTurnOnUsedBit: rcvr.
>             ].
>     lkupClass := self fetchClassOf: rcvr.
>     receiverClass := lkupClass.
>     self commonSend.
> 
> 
> So...if it is not a SmallInetger and if the flag is on, I turn on a bit. 
> 
> The question is, if I send a normal message to a normal object. Example:
> 
> | anObject |
> anObject := MyClass new.
> anObject foo
> 
> Now...I am sure that "anObject" was marked with the bit. But what about:
> a) the compiled method  MyClass >> #foo
> b) MyClass
> 
> should they be marked?
> 
> In other words:
> 
> self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject).
>     self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject class).
>     self deny: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: (anObject class >> #foo)).
>     
>      anObject foo.
> 
>     self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject).
>     self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: anObject class).
>     self assert: (unUsed primitiveGetUsedBit: (anObject class >> #foo)).
>     
> 
> should all the asserts pass?  I ask because I don't know how CompiledMethods are executed (they receive a normalSend like any other object?) nor how class are accessed.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Mariano
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11 May 2010 17:40, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks Igor. I could see #class does not the normal way. It was logic as it already has the pointer there ;)
> >> >
> >> > Now I wonder...to avoid those special cases, do you think it makes sense to intercept in commonSend rather than commonSend ?  or it would be the same ?
> >> >
> >> err... commonSend or commonSend? i think it would be the same :)
> >>
> >
> > hahahah sorry, I meant commonSend instead of normalSend.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> the other point, where you can try intercept a send is cache lookup.
> >>
> >
> > internalFindNewMethod  ?
> >
> 
> I don't know, maybe :)
> 
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mariano
> >


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20101003/d74142cb/attachment.htm