hi all,
Last month as an introduction to Squeak I did some performance testing for the creation of morphs, and a comparison between derivatives of Squeak. An advance copy of one of the graphs was posted previously, but I have since updated the graphs and discussion based on feedback at that time. I was going to tweak them some more but have been distracted by other priorities, and so I thought I would just post them now. I hope they are of some interest. I'll look at updating the graphs later, unless someone beats me too it in the comments. http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/ Its my first go at a blog (I hear all the cool kids are doin' it) - so any and all feedback on style and content is welcome. Cheers, Ben |
On 4/28/11 8:52 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/ Hi Ben.. nice posts! I'll add you to planet.squeak.org if that's ok, the whole blog unless you prefer to tag your squeak-related posts. |
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
On 28.04.2011, at 17:52, Ben Coman wrote: > hi all, > > Last month as an introduction to Squeak I did some performance testing for the creation of morphs, and a comparison between derivatives of Squeak. An advance copy of one of the graphs was posted previously, but I have since updated the graphs and discussion based on feedback at that time. I was going to tweak them some more but have been distracted by other priorities, and so I thought I would just post them now. I hope they are of some interest. I'll look at updating the graphs later, unless someone beats me too it in the comments. > > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/ > > Its my first go at a blog (I hear all the cool kids are doin' it) - so any and all feedback on style and content is welcome. > > Cheers, Ben Nice work. However, the VM (Interpreter or Cog) is independent of the image (Squeak / Cuis / Pharo). To get comparable results you should run either image on both VMs (or, since you just care about performance, use Cog for all three). - Bert - |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> > On 28.04.2011, at 17:52, Ben Coman wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> Last month as an introduction to Squeak I did some performance testing for the creation of morphs, and a comparison between derivatives of Squeak. An advance copy of one of the graphs was posted previously, but I have since updated the graphs and discussion based on feedback at that time. I was going to tweak them some more but have been distracted by other priorities, and so I thought I would just post them now. I hope they are of some interest. I'll look at updating the graphs later, unless someone beats me too it in the comments. >> >> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ >> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ >> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/ >> >> Its my first go at a blog (I hear all the cool kids are doin' it) - so any and all feedback on style and content is welcome. >> >> Cheers, Ben > > Nice work. However, the VM (Interpreter or Cog) is independent of the image (Squeak / Cuis / Pharo). To get comparable results you should run either image on both VMs (or, since you just care about performance, use Cog for all three). Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo and the interpreter vm for Squeak). Levente > > - Bert - > > > > |
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Ben Coman wrote:
> hi all, > > Last month as an introduction to Squeak I did some performance testing for > the creation of morphs, and a comparison between derivatives of Squeak. An > advance copy of one of the graphs was posted previously, but I have since > updated the graphs and discussion based on feedback at that time. I was > going to tweak them some more but have been distracted by other priorities, > and so I thought I would just post them now. I hope they are of some > interest. I'll look at updating the graphs later, unless someone beats me > too it in the comments. > > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/ > > Its my first go at a blog (I hear all the cool kids are doin' it) - so any > and all feedback on style and content is welcome. Interesting benchmark. For better comparison I ran it on my pc using the same VM (Cog r2382) and recent images. Morphic Performance Test Code v3.0 - Squeak 4.3-11353, CogVM r2382 amount, createTime, hideTime, showTime, deleteTime 1, 51, 3, 19, 101 10, 12, 16, 23, 64 100, 66, 53, 61, 54 200, 71, 58, 68, 55 300, 82, 58, 76, 54 400, 88, 56, 83, 59 500, 95, 56, 92, 55 600, 102, 59, 98, 55 700, 111, 58, 104, 56 800, 118, 57, 113, 57 900, 125, 62, 117, 55 1000, 138, 60, 133, 57 2000, 215, 67, 195, 57 3000, 314, 154, 265, 58 4000, 375, 76, 336, 62 5000, 454, 83, 443, 60 6000, 607, 82, 482, 59 7000, 621, 94, 702, 64 8000, 768, 99, 623, 62 9000, 847, 99, 719, 64 10000, 944, 105, 809, 65 30000, 2713, 307, 2740, 98 100000, 9475, 1061, 10158, 415 Morphic Performance Test Code v3.0 - Pharo 1.3-13171, CogVM r2382 amount, createTime, hideTime, showTime, deleteTime 1, 17, 4, 20, 40 10, 14, 10, 21, 39 100, 50, 41, 44, 23 200, 57, 42, 57, 22 300, 81, 57, 80, 21 400, 93, 68, 97, 20 500, 123, 85, 120, 22 600, 137, 90, 143, 23 700, 159, 111, 160, 22 800, 170, 115, 175, 22 900, 200, 136, 200, 23 1000, 215, 142, 219, 22 2000, 411, 275, 425, 22 3000, 605, 396, 632, 26 4000, 808, 524, 830, 24 5000, 1076, 664, 1034, 25 6000, 1191, 776, 1233, 26 7000, 1386, 911, 1446, 26 8000, 1587, 1044, 1651, 29 9000, 1787, 1159, 1893, 36 10000, 2140, 1334, 2048, 29 30000, 6037, 3906, 6335, 56 100000, 21994, 13990, 22803, 167 Morphic Performance Test Code v3.0 - Cuis 3.2-0914, CogVM r2382 amount, createTime, hideTime, showTime, deleteTime 1, 49, 22, 20, 55 10, 4, 21, 26, 57 100, 11, 76, 46, 36 200, 56, 36, 54, 36 300, 65, 37, 61, 35 400, 74, 37, 75, 34 500, 94, 35, 94, 35 600, 98, 38, 106, 36 700, 112, 37, 124, 34 800, 143, 39, 151, 35 900, 160, 38, 172, 36 1000, 187, 41, 198, 37 2000, 286, 50, 314, 34 3000, 414, 46, 430, 36 4000, 523, 53, 547, 38 5000, 640, 59, 643, 38 6000, 733, 62, 745, 42 7000, 837, 66, 824, 40 8000, 926, 74, 921, 41 9000, 1010, 72, 1011, 42 10000, 1140, 83, 1143, 40 30000, 6495, 257, 3027, 58 100000, 14997, 700, 10333, 338 Levente > > Cheers, Ben > > |
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
Nice! :)
I think you should run several passes for each value of "amount" and visualize the average value for each "amount" to get more meaningful results. There are several peaks in your graphs that, I think, do not represent the average use case but the influence of another hidden variable (e.g., garbage collector) you want to block out in your results. As far as I could see, you did not considered that in your benchmark code. Correct me, if I am wrong. :) Marcel |
In reply to this post by Levente Uzonyi-2
I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a
Cog and an non-cog? --Hannes On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > >> >> On 28.04.2011, at 17:52, Ben Coman wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> Last month as an introduction to Squeak I did some performance testing >>> for the creation of morphs, and a comparison between derivatives of >>> Squeak. An advance copy of one of the graphs was posted previously, but >>> I have since updated the graphs and discussion based on feedback at that >>> time. I was going to tweak them some more but have been distracted by >>> other priorities, and so I thought I would just post them now. I hope >>> they are of some interest. I'll look at updating the graphs later, >>> unless someone beats me too it in the comments. >>> >>> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ >>> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ >>> http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/ >>> >>> Its my first go at a blog (I hear all the cool kids are doin' it) - so >>> any and all feedback on style and content is welcome. >>> >>> Cheers, Ben >> >> Nice work. However, the VM (Interpreter or Cog) is independent of the >> image (Squeak / Cuis / Pharo). To get comparable results you should run >> either image on both VMs (or, since you just care about performance, use >> Cog for all three). > > Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download > VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the > releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster > than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo > and the interpreter vm for Squeak). > > > Levente > >> >> - Bert - >> >> >> >> > > |
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
Thanks Bert. I only used the All-In-One-Click packages and am not familiar with how mix & match VMs and images. It is not something I have looked into yet and a pointer to to some information on that would be useful. Also, Cog seemed to be only newly arrived for Squeak and I didn't want to hit complications. I was hoping it was fair to compare Squeak-Plain with Pharo-Plain and them to Pharo-Cog.On 28.04.2011, at 17:52, Ben Coman wrote:http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/Nice work. However, the VM (Interpreter or Cog) is independent of the image (Squeak / Cuis / Pharo). To get comparable results you should run either image on both VMs (or, since you just care about performance, use Cog for all three). - Bert - To a comment on the morphic-flavour-performance post I have attached a graph of Levente's results for CogVM with recent images. |
In reply to this post by Hannes Hirzel
Hannes Hirzel wrote:
> I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a > Cog and an non-cog? > > --Hannes > > On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download >> VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the >> releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster >> than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo >> and the interpreter vm for Squeak). >> >> >> Levente (for windows)? How compatible are the images for Cog and non-Cog? Could two executables be included in a single All-In-One package - ie named like SqueakClassic.exe & SqueakCog.exe ? |
In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel (old)
Marcel Taeumel wrote:
> Nice! :) > > I think you should run several passes for each value of "amount" and > visualize the average value for each "amount" to get more meaningful > results. There are several peaks in your graphs that, I think, do not > represent the average use case but the influence of another hidden variable > (e.g., garbage collector) you want to block out in your results. > > As far as I could see, you did not considered that in your benchmark code. > Correct me, if I am wrong. :) > > Marcel > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Morphic-Performance-Graphs-tp3481429p3483122.html > Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > across multiple runs. Early on I did implement multiple-runs but it was an added complication for the blog entry. Also I find the peaks enlightening without hiding the general rising trend. What I did find really interesting is the way the peaks disappeared in Figure 2 of morphic-flavour-performance. This was still just one-shot results. It almost seems like "ActiveWorld doOneCycle" schedules a garbage collection after it completes, such that GC no longer occurs at random times. |
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
To have Squeak with Cog I replaced the old Squeak VM with a Cog one
from http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/ (MSWindows) --Hannes On 4/29/11, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hannes Hirzel wrote: >> I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a >> Cog and an non-cog? >> >> --Hannes >> >> On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download >>> VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the >>> releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster >>> than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo >>> and the interpreter vm for Squeak). >>> >>> >>> Levente > Is the difference between a Cog and non-Cog VM just the a different exe > (for windows)? > How compatible are the images for Cog and non-Cog? > Could two executables be included in a single All-In-One package - ie > named like SqueakClassic.exe & SqueakCog.exe ? > > |
Do you mean extract cogwin.zip into the Squeak-All-In-One folder and
then rename croquet.exe to squeak.exe ?
Hannes Hirzel wrote: To have Squeak with Cog I replaced the old Squeak VM with a Cog one from http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/ (MSWindows) --Hannes On 4/29/11, Ben Coman [hidden email] wrote:Hannes Hirzel wrote:I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a Cog and an non-cog? --Hannes On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi [hidden email] wrote:Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo and the interpreter vm for Squeak). LeventeIs the difference between a Cog and non-Cog VM just the a different exe (for windows)? How compatible are the images for Cog and non-Cog? Could two executables be included in a single All-In-One package - ie named like SqueakClassic.exe & SqueakCog.exe ? |
Yes, unzip.
You do not need to rename the file. croquet.exe. Just double click and then it looks for the image file and launches it. But I think you cannot go back to squeak.exe after you have started and saved the image with croquet.exe. (Others please correct me) --Hannes On 4/29/11, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote: > Do you mean extract cogwin.zip into the Squeak-All-In-One folder and then > rename croquet.exe to squeak.exe ? > > Hannes Hirzel wrote: >> >> To have Squeak with Cog I replaced the old Squeak VM with a Cog one >> from http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/ (MSWindows) >> >> --Hannes >> >> On 4/29/11, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hannes Hirzel wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a >>>> Cog and an non-cog? >>>> >>>> --Hannes >>>> >>>> On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't >>>>> download >>>>> VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the >>>>> releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is >>>>> faster >>>>> than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for >>>>> Pharo >>>>> and the interpreter vm for Squeak). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Levente >>>>> >>> >>> Is the difference between a Cog and non-Cog VM just the a different exe >>> (for windows)? >>> How compatible are the images for Cog and non-Cog? >>> Could two executables be included in a single All-In-One package - ie >>> named like SqueakClassic.exe & SqueakCog.exe ? >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > |
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Ben Coman wrote:
> Hannes Hirzel wrote: >> I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a >> Cog and an non-cog? >> >> --Hannes >> >> On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download >>> VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the >>> releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster >>> than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo >>> and the interpreter vm for Squeak). >>> >>> >>> Levente > Is the difference between a Cog and non-Cog VM just the a different exe (for > windows)? Basically yes, some plugins are also different, but from the user's point of view it's just a different executable on all platforms. > How compatible are the images for Cog and non-Cog? Could two executables be In case of released images, only Squeak 4.2 is Cog compatible, because Cog was released shortly after the release of Squeak 4.1. But applying a few changes to a Squeak 4.1 image (that's what Pharo developers did to Pharo 1.1 to release Pharo 1.1.1) will make it Cog compatible. This intermediate release seemed unnecessary for Squeak, because with a change of a preference and a single click (update) one could make her/his image Cog compatible. > included in a single All-In-One package - ie named like SqueakClassic.exe & > SqueakCog.exe ? Yes, it's possible, Cobalt is already packaged this way. Levente > > |
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Ben Coman wrote:
> Bert Freudenberg wrote: > > On 28.04.2011, at 17:52, Ben Coman wrote: > > > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/ > > > Nice work. However, the VM (Interpreter or Cog) is independent of the image (Squeak / Cuis / Pharo). To get comparable results you should run either image on both VMs (or, since you just care about performance, use Cog for all three). > > - Bert - > > > Thanks Bert. I only used the All-In-One-Click packages and am not familiar with how mix & match VMs and images. It is not something I have looked > into yet and a pointer to to some information on that would be useful. Also, Cog seemed to be only newly arrived for Squeak and I didn't want to hit > complications. I was hoping it was fair to compare Squeak-Plain with Pharo-Plain and them to Pharo-Cog. > > To a comment on the morphic-flavour-performance post I have attached a graph of Levente's results for CogVM with recent images. Thanks. I was too lazy to convert from the output to the format used by the spreadsheet. Levente > > |
In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel (old)
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Marcel Taeumel wrote:
> Nice! :) > > I think you should run several passes for each value of "amount" and > visualize the average value for each "amount" to get more meaningful > results. There are several peaks in your graphs that, I think, do not > represent the average use case but the influence of another hidden variable > (e.g., garbage collector) you want to block out in your results. > > As far as I could see, you did not considered that in your benchmark code. > Correct me, if I am wrong. :) GC is part of the execution. Ignoring it for benchmarks with high memory usage yields false results. A single GC before each run is useful though, but I guess it's effect is not that significant for this benchmark. Note that the cost of finalization is also different among the used images. Levente > > Marcel > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Morphic-Performance-Graphs-tp3481429p3483122.html > Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > |
In reply to this post by Hannes Hirzel
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
> Yes, unzip. > > You do not need to rename the file. croquet.exe. Just double click and > then it looks for the image file and launches it. > > But I think you cannot go back to squeak.exe after you have started > and saved the image with croquet.exe. (Others please correct me) Squeak images saved by the CogVM will have a new image format. The current release (4.1.1) of SqueakVM for windows can't read such images. I built a VM which can be used to convert your images back to the old formatl. It's available here: http://leves.web.elte.hu/squeak/SqueakVM-Win32-4.4.9-2358-non-official-bin.zip Levente > > --Hannes > > On 4/29/11, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Do you mean extract cogwin.zip into the Squeak-All-In-One folder and then >> rename croquet.exe to squeak.exe ? >> >> Hannes Hirzel wrote: >>> >>> To have Squeak with Cog I replaced the old Squeak VM with a Cog one >>> from http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/ (MSWindows) >>> >>> --Hannes >>> >>> On 4/29/11, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hannes Hirzel wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a >>>>> Cog and an non-cog? >>>>> >>>>> --Hannes >>>>> >>>>> On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't >>>>>> download >>>>>> VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the >>>>>> releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is >>>>>> faster >>>>>> than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for >>>>>> Pharo >>>>>> and the interpreter vm for Squeak). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Levente >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Is the difference between a Cog and non-Cog VM just the a different exe >>>> (for windows)? >>>> How compatible are the images for Cog and non-Cog? >>>> Could two executables be included in a single All-In-One package - ie >>>> named like SqueakClassic.exe & SqueakCog.exe ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > |
In reply to this post by Levente Uzonyi-2
Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Ben Coman wrote:I notice a big difference in your results between Pharo and Squeak that may be related to an enlightening comment left by Henrik on the morphic-flavour-performance article > The intersects check used for culling really dislikes floating point bounding box though, as it has to convert them to Fractions before comparing with integers. Would you feel inclined to rerun your tests using "rounded" ? OR... if you could direct me to instructions on how to update my images from the one-clicks to the versions you used, then I will re-run on my hardware to get a direct comparison to my previous results. I've been googling terms like "squeak updating to trunk" but there is a lot of fluff that isn't what I need.
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Ben Coman wrote:
> Levente Uzonyi wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Ben Coman wrote: > > Bert Freudenberg wrote: > > On 28.04.2011, at 17:52, Ben Coman wrote: > > > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/ > http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/ > > > Nice work. However, the VM (Interpreter or Cog) is independent of the image (Squeak / Cuis / Pharo). To get comparable results > you should run either image on both VMs (or, since you just care about performance, use Cog for all three). > > - Bert - > > > Thanks Bert. I only used the All-In-One-Click packages and am not familiar with how mix & match VMs and images. It is not > something I have looked > into yet and a pointer to to some information on that would be useful. Also, Cog seemed to be only newly arrived for Squeak > and I didn't want to hit > complications. I was hoping it was fair to compare Squeak-Plain with Pharo-Plain and them to Pharo-Cog. > > To a comment on the morphic-flavour-performance post I have attached a graph of Levente's results for CogVM with recent images. > > > Thanks. I was too lazy to convert from the output to the format used by the spreadsheet. > > > Levente > > I notice a big difference in your results between Pharo and Squeak that may be related to an enlightening comment left by Henrik on the > morphic-flavour-performance article > > The intersects check used for culling really dislikes floating point bounding box though, as it has to convert them to Fractions before comparing > with integers. > > Would you feel inclined to rerun your tests using "rounded" ? I've got no time for that right now, maybe later this evening. > OR... if you could direct me to instructions on how to update my images from the one-clicks to the versions you used, then I will re-run on my hardware > to get a direct comparison to my previous results. I've been googling terms like "squeak updating to trunk" but there is a lot of fluff that isn't > what I need. Using another VM is pretty easy. Just download this http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/VM.r2382/cogwin.zip , unzip it to any folder, then double click on Croquet.exe, select the image you want to open, and that's it. If the sources file for your image is not on the path, then the image will be unhappy about it, but that shouldn't be a problem. You can always put the sources file to the same folder where Croquet.exe is to fix this though. Note that the Pharo and Cuis versions I used have changed their Transcript implementations, so you'll have to adjust your code accordingly, otherwise you won't be able to copy the results from Transcript. Levente > > > > |
In reply to this post by Levente Uzonyi-2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Have these changes been folded back into VMMaker trunk?
|
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |