On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Levente Uzonyi <le...@elte.hu> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Levente Uzonyi <le...@elte.hu> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi Levente. Thanks for looking into the issue. I saw your code and there
is
something I don't understand.
pointsTo: anObject
"Answers true if the garbage collector would fail to collect anObject
because I hold a reference to it, or false otherwise"
(self instVarsInclude: anObject)
ifTrue: [
self class isWeak ifFalse: [ ^true ].
1 to: self class instSize do: [ :i |
(self instVarAt: i) == anObject ifTrue: [ ^true ] ].
^false ]
ifFalse: [ ^self class == anObject and: [ self class isCompact not
] ]
I don't understand the loop of
1 to: self class instSize do: [ :i |
(self instVarAt: i) == anObject ifTrue: [ ^true ] ].
In which scenario can (self instVarsInclude: anObject) answer true,
but the loop false?
The scenario happens when the receiver has weak slots and the argument is
referenced from one of those weak slots, but not from the other slots.
Ok, I see. And moreover, there has to be a GC in the middle, right?
so..the scenario is "The scenario happens when the receiver has weak
slots,
the argument is referenced from one of those weak slots, but not from the
other non-weak slots, and also when a GC runs between the invokation to
#instVarsInclude: and the loop".
is that correct? so that I will add this comment to the code ;)
No, there doesn't have to be a GC.
So..I am puzzle again. I said "In which scenario can (self
instVarsInclude: anObject) answer true, but the loop false? "
you answered: "The scenario happens when the receiver has weak slots and
the argument is referenced from one of those weak slots, but not from the
other slots."
Imagine the receiver has a weak slot XXX that points to anObject. So (self
instVarsInclude: anObject) answers true. How can the loop answer false
without a GC?
why would XXX stop pointing to anObject if there is not GC in the middle ?
The loop doesn't iterate over the indexable slots, only named ones.
Levente
thanks
Levente
doesn't #instVarsInclude do exactly what you are doing there?
Just partially. Since we have no information about which slots hold the
reference to the argument, therefore this loop must be "repeated".
Ok, I see.
Anyway, I have integrated your changes in Pharo, but still, I have the
same
problem :(
If I understand correctly, the following shouldn't fail, but it does.
Here
is the version of Squeak that fails.
The assetion fails, because the indirection vector (the Array found by
PointerFinder) holds a reference to the object after the first assignment
to a. If you move the temporary inside the block or use an inlined loop
(e.g. #to:do: with literal block argument), then the assertion won't
fail.
So this is just a normal (maybe surprising) reference to the object.
Excellent. Now I got it. Thank you very much for your help Levente. Now
PointerFinderTest are green :)
Levente
| a |
10 timesRepeat: [
a := Date new.
Smalltalk garbageCollect.
self assert: (PointerFinder pointersTo: a) isEmpty
]
Thanks a lot,
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Levente Uzonyi <le...@elte.hu> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
What I don't understand is why in Squeak it does work.
Because #pointsTo: is not used in Squeak (yet). As usual I dug
deeper
than
I should have, so I'll publish a few changes soon.
Ok, you are right. Squeak #inboundPointersExcluding: is using
#instVarsInclude: rather than #pointsTo. And that solves the
problem in
Pharo as well. But still, I would like to understand why we get those
method contexts with #pointsTo.
Because #pointsTo: is a normal message send, it even sends other
methods,
so it will create contexts.
Thanks Levente for your help. If you find something let us know, I
want
to
learn :)
I pushed my changes to the Squeak Inbox, which fully works around
this
issue. The changes about weak references can simply be removed if you
don't
like them, the rest will just work without them.
Levente
Thanks
Levente
Thanks in advance Levente!
it will create at least one new MethodContext which is not included
in
that list.
Levente
Levente
Thanks again.
Levente
Do you mean what I understand :)? that some tools compiled
methods?
:)
Stef
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.**************com <
http://marianopeck.wordpress.
****
com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.**********com<
http://marianopeck.****
wordpress.com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.******com<
http://marianopeck.**wordpress**.com <http://wordpress.com><
http://marianopeck.**wordpress.com<http://marianopeck.wordpress.com>
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.************com <
http://marianopeck.wordpress.
****
com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.********com<
http://marianopeck.****
wordpress.com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.****com<
http://marianopeck.**wordpress.com<http://marianopeck.wordpress.com>
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.**********com <
http://marianopeck.wordpress.
****
com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.******com<http://marianopeck.**
wordpress.com
<http://marianopeck.wordpress.**com<http://marianopeck.wordpress.com>
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.********com <
http://marianopeck.wordpress.
****
com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.****com<http://marianopeck.**
wordpress.com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.com>>
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.******com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.
****
com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.**com<http://marianopeck.wordpress.com>
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.****com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.**
com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.com>>
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.**com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.com>
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
