Hi Peter, On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 19:33, Peter Uhnak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > considering how important this is, shouldn't this become standard part of the > VM? > e.g. > > ./pharo-x-vm --support pharo-y.image > > Which will return > * 1/yes/... if the VM can launch it > * 2/maybe/unclear... if the VM cannot determine it (this is futureproofing, > e.g. if you tried to launch Pharo 9 image with Pharo 7 VM) > * 0/no/maxVersion/... returns the latest known VM version that was capable of > launching the image (so VM will have a lookup table to check past image > versions) > > or something along those lines... is there some scenario that wouldn't be > covered by these three?
The current scenario. As I understand it, the VM is compatible with the image format, it is just a bit old and is missing a new primitive (and since this is within the development cycle we're not trying to keep backward compatibility, if you're using the latest pharo 7 image you should be using the latest pharo 7 VM, the rules will change once pharo 7 is released). It would be useful to have a Pharo version embedded in the header of the image. That could then be queried and the latest VM for that version used to start the image. I think that would cover the majority of cases. Cheers, Alistair
