On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
Obviously you can't having a single object representation (a tagged
machine word with lowest bit set)
and have two different classes for it.
Yes, that's true. The thing is that I have a big problem using SmallInteger
as proxies....So far I always used a subclass of ProtoObject for the
proxies. This is cool because most of the messages are not understood by
ProtoObject, thus I can intercept most messages. Now, the problem using
SmallInteger as proxies is that there are several methods that ARE
understood by both. This is a big problem because the original
CompiledMethod is not installed, and the method answers but with a different
value.
For example, suppose I do something like this:
MyClass methodDict at: #foo put: 5.
(MyClass >> #foo) size
In this case, I would like that size is NOT understood by the proxy and that
loads back the original compiled method. But this is not the case since
SmallIngeger DOES understand the message #size. Thus, it answers...and
something different than the size of the compiled method...
That's why you should change MethodDictionary >> #at:ifAbsent: to load
the CompiledMethod and return that instead of the integer.
Levente
So in summary I have problems with all methods that are understood by both,
even all those in Object I think...
Best regards,
Mariano
On 21 November 2010 16:51, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]> wrote:
The only problem is that you can't swap-out a method that's used by
the
swap-in code.
Yes, but that's easy to solve. Before swapping everything, I "simulate"
the
swapping of a dummy CompiledMethod. During that, I mark all the
CompiledMethods that were used to perform that. And then, I exclude
those
objects from being swapped :)
That won't work, because during the simulation you'll only try a single
execution path. Swapping in a real method may invoke methods that
weren't
used during the simulation. For example my implementation uses
#storeString
to serialize the methods and Compiler >> #evaluate: to deserialize them.
So
during deserialization a lot of different methods may be invoked.
Ahhh I got it....
Are you using Cog? because with the SmallInteger I have the problem I
described with #run:with:in:
Last question....to use SmallIntegers, I need to put some methods in
SmallInteger, like #run:with:in: , #doesNotUnderstand: , and all the
methods related to writing and loading back the original compiledMethod.
Of
course I can put all those methods under a category *MyProxyPackage ...
but I was thinking if there is another way. I would love to have
MySmallIntegerProxy that extends from ProtoObject (because I want my
proxy
to understand as less messages as possible) and that is threated by the
VM
like a SmallInetger, I mean, that it directly stores the number value in
the
address, and put the last bit in 1.
Is this possible? how much work can it be?
Thanks in advance,
Mariano
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
