On 24/6/14 08:19, stepharo wrote:
The slice cannot be integrated automatically because there is a modal
popping up
Warning: Process should not be redefined. Proceed to store
over it.
Not sure what to do. Manual integration?
We will check that :)
Norbert
Am 23.06.2014 um 23:55 schrieb Norbert Hartl <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
