On 10 août 2014, at 19:15, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Nicolai, > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Eliot, > > I am pretty sure this is not a vm issue :) > > The mustBeBooleanInMagic: creates a method on the fly and executes it with > the > a context as argument. > The "ThisContext" is not the "thisContext", but the argument of the generated > method. > > This is the bytecode of the generated method: > > 17 <00> pushRcvr: 0 > 18 <8F 00 00 02> closureNumCopied: 0 numArgs: 0 bytes 22 to 23 > 22 <76> pushConstant: 1 > 23 <7D> blockReturn > 24 <8F 00 00 02> closureNumCopied: 0 numArgs: 0 bytes 28 to 29 > 28 <75> pushConstant: 0 > 29 <7D> blockReturn > 30 <F0> send: ifTrue:ifFalse: > 31 <7C> returnTop > > The original method is > > foo > ^ notABool1 ifTrue:[1] ifFalse:[0] > > The generated method compiles this part > notABool1 ifTrue:[1] ifFalse:[0] > > to bytecode without the jumpFalse optimization. > The problem is that the receiver for the ifTrue:ifFalse send is accessed > through > pushRcvr:0, whereas the thisContext is not the context of the original method > anymore. > > Ah, now I know what's going on. Thanks. I like this experiment very much. > > How do you extract the blocks from the method? Do you decompile or simply > recompile from source or...? We just recompile the ast message node that triggered the error without optimizations and some rewriting (temps and returns). Right now it works only for 'if' messages. For 'while' messages I'm thinking about sending #truthValue to the value of the receiver block. > Have (any of) you looked at implementing the mustBeBooleanMagic by > interpreting the bytecodes that already exist in the method via some > specialized interpreter instead of compiling a method on the fly? No but that would be interesting indeed :) Another solution is to cache the generated methods somewhere instead of recompiling each time. > > > Nicolai > > > 2014-08-10 17:34 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <[email protected]>: > > Hi Nicolai, > > please try and remember to invlude vm-dev when you see a VM issue... > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a certain risk, that the mustBeBooleanMagicIn method rewrite can > crash the > vm > Issue 13805 > > Since you're using the Opal compiler ca you add the description of the > bytecode (aCompiledMethod symbolic) to the issue? I'll try and take a look > soon but want to be sure I'm debugging the relevant code. > > The receiver of the rewritten method is the "nonboolean" value receiving the > ifTrue:ifFalse: message. But the rewritten method can include > instvar accessor and self sends of the original method. > > We can include more rewrite rules in mustBeBooleanMagicIn like > "rewrite instvar accessing" > context receiver class instVarNamesAndOffsetsDo: [ :n :o | > RBParseTreeRewriter new > replace: n with: ('ThisContext receiver instVarAt: ', o asString); > executeTree: methodNode. > ]. > "rewrite self sends" > RBParseTreeRewriter new > replace: 'self' with: 'ThisContext receiver'; > executeTree: methodNode. > > But I don't know if this works for all possible situations. Or if there are > better ways to do the rewriting. > > Remember the mirror methods: > thisContext object: o instVarAt: > which doesn't send to o, reaching directly into it. > > But what's the point of replacing "self" with "thisContext receiver"? The > latter is potentially an extremely slow way of doing the former. The former > won't create a context object in a method activation that doesn't need one > (doesn't include a block), whereas the latter always will. But they will > always yield the same result. > -- > curious, > Eliot > -- > best, > Eliot
