[Vm-dev] questions about a couple of primitives

Florin Mateoc florin.mateoc at gmail.com
Tue Sep 1 00:11:16 UTC 2020


On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 6:29 PM Florin Mateoc <florin.mateoc at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 6:00 PM Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:00 PM Florin Mateoc <florin.mateoc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think this is especially confusing since the comment says that the
>>> primitive always fails, and then the expectation is that the Smalltalk code
>>> that follows is executed instead. But that code does not do what the method
>>> actually does
>>>
>>
>> I disagree.  It does exactly what the method does (it *is* the
>> implementation of the method) unless the stack is unwound.  Yes, the
>> comment could point the reader to Context>>#resume:through: which runs
>> the ensure: & ifCurtailed: blocks on unwind.  Bit otherwise ifCurtailed: is
>> not somehow magically not executed.  It is what it is ;-)
>>
>> As I said earlier,  ifCurtailed: only evaluates its argument if a
>> non-local return or exception return is taken and the normal return path is
>> not taken.  See Context>>#resume:through: which runs the ensure: &
>> ifCurtailed: blocks.
>>
>> Can I confirm that your dissatisfaction is with the comment?  Or do you
>> really think the ifCurtailed: method does not execute verbatim in the
>> absence of unwinds?  If the former, you're welcome to submit an improved
>> comment.  If the latter, you're mistaken.
>>
>>
>
> Of course I agree that the ifCurtailed: method does execute verbatim in
> the absence of unwind. But the method does not only execute in the absence
> of unwinds. So my "dissatisfaction" is not just with the comment. While it
> could be somewhat be addressed by a comment, I think this is an instance
> where the vm is caught cheating. The shown Smalltalk code is not what gets
> executed in the presence of unwinds (as opposed to the code shown in
> #ensure: ). The execution of the argument block is hidden inside the vm
>
>
To be more pedantic, neither #ensure: nor #ifCurtailed: disclose what is
really happening on the unwind path, but at least #ensure: shows some code
that conceptually matches its semantics.
In both cases, there is magic happening inside #valueNoContextSwitch,
which, although it does not take any arguments, it knows how to (call a
method that knows how to) invoke, if necessary, its caller's argument.
Yes, by walking the stack and peeking inside the contexts' temps and then
acting upon them anything is possible, but the resulting code is anything
but readable.

I would argue for passing the #ensure: and #ifCurtailed: arguments to the
#valueNoContextSwitch method/primitive, thus making it possible to avoid
#resume:through: - I think such methods are fine for simulation/debugger,
but not for runtime.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20200831/578b5516/attachment.html>


More information about the Vm-dev mailing list