[Vm-dev] status of VMMaker.oscog-eem.1083
Eliot Miranda
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 01:10:11 UTC 2015
Hi Nicolas,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From the comments in
> - positive32BitIntegerFor: and positive64BitIntegerFor:
> and from the names
> - maybeInlinePositive32BitIntegerFor: and noInlineSigned32BitIntegerFor:
>
> if I understand correctly, slang is inlining some methods carelessly of
> type compatibility.
> it eliminate assignments of parameter where it should not, is that it?
>
> That's not a new thing but very much what I bumped into one year ago:
>
>
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2013-December/014371.html
>
> I had only signedness issues, but with 32 vs 64 bits it can be much worse
> indeed.
>
> That's precisely the methods I want to play with, so before I hit some
> wall,
> what is the status, can we generate a working 32 and/or 64 bits spur VM
> with 1083?
>
I believe so. But I believed that of VMMaker.oscog-eem.1079 and testing by
Chris Muller shoed me the VM was buggy. So Chris is kindly testing the VM
built from VMMaker.oscog-eem.1083 and if it passes I'll put the VMs on the
web site. The testing should be completed this evening.
--
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20150304/ee7b1395/attachment.htm
More information about the Vm-dev
mailing list