https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?13378

Btw. I tested this as well in 3.0 and a backport would be highly appreciated.

Norbert

Am 23.06.2014 um 20:08 schrieb stepharo <[email protected]>:

> Thanks Eliot.
> Sven, Norbert if you package that nicely (BTW having some tests would be 
> great) we can include that in 4.0
> 
> Stef
> On 23/6/14 19:29, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>> and here are the changes I've just committed to Squeak trunk.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> Hi Norbert,
>> 
>>     [ let me try again.  never try and get code out too early in the morning 
>> ;-) ]
>> 
>>     it is the debugger that needs fixing, not your code !! :-).  The 
>> debugger needs to respect process identity.  Andreas and I (mostly Andreas) 
>> came up with the following changes at Qwaq.  Your message is a good reminder 
>> that I need to add this to Squeak asap.
>> 
>> The idea is for Process to have an additional inst var 'effectiveProcess' 
>> that holds the actual process running code.  For the most part this is self, 
>> but in the debugger we substitute the process being debugged:
>> 
>> Process methods for accessing
>> effectiveProcess
>>  "effectiveProcess is a mechanism to allow process-faithful debugging.  The 
>> debugger executes code
>>   on behalf of processes, so unless some effort is made the identity of 
>> Processor activeProcess is not
>>   correctly maintained when debugging code.  The debugger uses 
>> evaluate:onBehalfOf: to assign the
>>   debugged process as the effectiveProcess of the process executing the 
>> code, preserving process
>>   identity."
>>  ^effectiveProcess ifNil: [self]
>> 
>> then the relevant methods in Process and processorScheduler defer to 
>> effectiveProcess, e.g.
>> 
>> ProcessorScheduler methods for process state change
>> terminateActive
>>  "Terminate the process that is currently running."
>> 
>>  activeProcess effectiveProcess terminate
>> 
>> and the debugging methods use evaluate:onBehalfOf: to install the process 
>> being debugged:
>> 
>> Process methods for private
>> evaluate: aBlock onBehalfOf: aProcess
>>  "Evaluate aBlock setting effectiveProcess to aProcess.  Used
>>   in the execution simulation machinery to ensure that
>>   Processor activeProcess evaluates correctly when debugging."
>>  | oldEffectiveProcess |
>>  oldEffectiveProcess := effectiveProcess.
>>  effectiveProcess := aProcess.
>>  ^aBlock ensure: [effectiveProcess := oldEffectiveProcess]
>> 
>> Process methods for changing suspended state
>> step
>> 
>>  ^Processor activeProcess
>>  evaluate: [suspendedContext := suspendedContext step]
>>  onBehalfOf: self
>> 
>> stepToCallee
>>  "Step until top context changes"
>> 
>>  Processor activeProcess
>>  evaluate:
>>  [| ctxt |
>>  ctxt := suspendedContext.
>>  [ctxt == suspendedContext] whileTrue: [
>>  suspendedContext := suspendedContext step]]
>>  onBehalfOf: self.
>>  ^suspendedContext
>> 
>> etc.  Changes from a Qwaq image attached.
>> 
>> HTH
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In my code I'm using a DynamicVariable to request a context object when 
>> needed. Until now I knew the name DynamicVariable only from seaside. There 
>> it is called WADynamicVariable and it is an exception. So I blindly assumed 
>> the pharo DynamicVariable works the same.
>> I thought this might be a good optimization not to travel the stack all the 
>> time but put in the process.
>> Now that I am using it I can see the difference. I find it real hard using 
>> it because I don't know how to debug/step in code. DynamicVariable is a 
>> process specific variable but as soon as a debugger opens it is very likely 
>> to be in another process. This makes stepping in method using the 
>> DynamicVariable impossible. The only way round is to set break points after 
>> the dynamic lookup and step from there. But this feels just wrong.
>> What would be the best way to have DynamicVariable and be able to debug 
>> anything? Or is there a variant that uses the stack instead of the "active" 
>> process?
>> 
>> thanks,
>> 
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> best,
>> Eliot
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> best,
>> Eliot
> 

Reply via email to