On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Torsten Bergmann <asta...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 1. We can query for the VIRTUAL MACHINE and ask if it is 32 or 64 bit
> (internally depending on wordSize):
> Smalltalk vm is32Bit
> Anything OK on that side.
> 2. We can also query for the OPERATING SYSTEM we are running on using:
> Smalltalk os
> and there are subclasses for OSPlatform like Win32Platform,
> Win64Platform as well as Unix32Platform,
> unix64Platform, ...
> But when I evaluate "Smalltalk os" in Pharo 7 Build #70552
> 2a) I receive a Win32Platform instance which means 32 bit although
> I'm running on a Win 64 system
> 2b) I receive a Unix32Platform instance which means 32 bit although
> I'm running on a Ubuntu 64 system
> I see this as a clear bug and very confusing
> The reason for this behavior is simple: because I run with the 32 bit
> VM/image on these two 64 bit operating
> systems and in Pharo:
> for 2a) the#isActivePlatform method ask the VM (???)for the platform
> name (which is Win32 then)
> for 2b) the#isActivePlatform method also considers the word size from
> the VM (???)
> But to me the "os" should give me infos about the underlying operating
> system and is currently
> returning a wrong instance (because it falls back to querying about the
> running VM, not the real platform)
> This would be easy to fix with some UFFI calls (for instance piping from
> "uname -i" on Unix or "ver" on Windows).
> With UFFI I would also be able to give more and better infos in the
> platform hierarchy about the underlying OS.
> But doing this would introduce a dependency from the "Systems-Platforms"
> package to "UFFI" (and currently my
> understanding is that UFFI comes later)
> From what I understood from the comment in getPwdViaFFI:with we also would
> like to focus on a minimal dependency
> for bootstrap ... and only depend on FFI and not UFFI.
Well, but that's because the working directory is needed at bootstrap time.
Take into account that the packages that belong to the bootstrap are those
System-Platforms is listed there, but maybe it is not so necessary? We
should check what are the usages of it.
In any case, what I'd say is that "stuff" that is not really needed at
bootstrap time should be loaded afterwards, maybe as a separate package
with extension methods?
And in that case you're free to go and use uFFI, that should be no problem.
Just take into account that uFFI is loaded by BaselineOfMorphicCore
> Any comments how we could deal with that best?
Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille
CRIStAL - UMR 9189
French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr
*Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io>
*Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13