I do have that issue often when loading my devstack configuration on Pharo 2.0 (as in http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~philippeback/HOWebStack)
Doing everything again fixes the problem but fingers crossed are required. It is a really annoying bug indeed. Phil --- Philippe Back Dramatic Performance Improvements Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail:[email protected] | Web: http://philippeback.eu Blog: http://philippeback.be | Twitter: @philippeback Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/philippeback/videos High Octane SPRL rue cour Boisacq 101 | 1301 Bierges | Belgium Featured on the Software Process and Measurement Cast http://spamcast.libsyn.com Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and Ability Engineering EADocX Value Added Reseller On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 June 2013 14:13, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > > > I've been seeing a particular bug that I can only see when using the > PharoVM and I was wondering if anybody else has been having the same issue. > > > > Under certain condition, a debugger will open displaying "SmallInteger > does not understand <some message>". The stack top contains an integer > (something of the form 138402, not sure how many digits), which explains > the message. However, the situation actually looks like this: > > > > htmil anchor > > id: 'foo'; > > … > > > > In this example, the error would be "SmallInteger does not understand > #id:". So the stack top contains an integer instead of the receiver. > > Restarting the execution of the method and proceeding fixes the problem. > I think I've seen that (using seaside), a new session will trigger the bug > again. > > > > Apart from Seaside, I've also seen the same problem when loading Roberto > Minelli's DevFlow into a Pharo 2.0 image. The debugger will open on a > Metacello method. > > > > VM: latest PharoVM > > image: latest 2.0 > > try this config: http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~RobertoMinelli/DevFlowwith > > "ConfigurationOfDevFlow loadDevelopment" > > > > > > Has anybody else encountered this? > > > yes, couple months ago we had this issue. > It looks like it doesn't likes some bytecode sequence (which causing > this).. > and this sequence is not appears that often. > > If i remember Esteban said that changing compiler optimizations flags > fixed it.. > but perhaps not on platform , you running on? > > > Cheers, > > Max > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >
