Unix VM closure enabled?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas.Raab
 
Folks -

I'll show my complete ignorance here but can someone explain to me what
the status of closure support in the Unix VMs is? Windows and Macs have
binaries that people can just download; I don't think the Unix VM is
usually shipped as binary, no?

In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to get a
closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?

Thanks,
   - Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

David T. Lewis
 
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 03:56:40PM -0700, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
> Folks -
>
> I'll show my complete ignorance here but can someone explain to me what
> the status of closure support in the Unix VMs is? Windows and Macs have
> binaries that people can just download; I don't think the Unix VM is
> usually shipped as binary, no?

Ian has recently returned from holiday, and will be available to help
with updates shortly. In the mean time, Bryce Kampjes has stepped forward
to provide closure enabled VMs to support Pharo, etc (thanks!).

The only thing that is required for a closure enabled VM is to build the
distribution using a recent VMMaker. There is no external support code
required, so nothing unix specific.

> In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to get a
> closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?

Just build the VM with recent VMMaker and Subversion support code. That's
it. Near term, use Bryce's Exupery VM with closure support. Real soon now,
use whatever Ian next compiles.

There are a number of outstanding issues and updates that we should try
to coordinate over the next couple of months, and I think it's on me
to publish a suggested to-do list for this. But as far as the closure
support, it's basically just a matter of compile it and go.

Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Damien Cassou-3
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
 
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote:
> In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to get a
> closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?

Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:
http://pharo-project.org/pharo-download

I've also attached a README.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
popular by not having them." James Iry

README.txt (1K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

David T. Lewis
 
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:23:55PM +0200, Damien Cassou wrote:
>  
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to get a
> > closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?
>
> Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:
> http://pharo-project.org/pharo-download
>
> I've also attached a README.


Damien,

Thanks for the link.

Andreas,

I repeated the test of loading closure support from your MCUpdateTest
update stream, this time using the Pharo (Exupery) 32-bit Linux VM
rather than my homebrew 64-bit VM. The results are the same, with the
load stopping in the preamble to Compiler-ar.70.

So with respect to running the closure bytecode support, there is no
evidence of a difference between the VM compiled for 32 bit pointers
(Exupery build) versus a VM compiled for 64 bit pointers.

Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas.Raab
 
David T. Lewis wrote:
> I repeated the test of loading closure support from your MCUpdateTest
> update stream, this time using the Pharo (Exupery) 32-bit Linux VM
> rather than my homebrew 64-bit VM. The results are the same, with the
> load stopping in the preamble to Compiler-ar.70.

Thanks David. If you have the time, can you do me a favor and attach gdb
when it's in that state and see what printCallStack() gives us? Plus, if
possible, a check whether the issue might be caused by something
unrelated (i.e., one of the these negative address space wrap arounds;
running out of disk space) would be useful. Lastly, any chance that you
can send me a link to that particular image you're using? Perhaps there
is just something strange with that image.

Cheers,
   - Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

David T. Lewis
 
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 08:53:57AM -0700, Andreas Raab wrote:

>
> David T. Lewis wrote:
> >I repeated the test of loading closure support from your MCUpdateTest
> >update stream, this time using the Pharo (Exupery) 32-bit Linux VM
> >rather than my homebrew 64-bit VM. The results are the same, with the
> >load stopping in the preamble to Compiler-ar.70.
>
> Thanks David. If you have the time, can you do me a favor and attach gdb
> when it's in that state and see what printCallStack() gives us? Plus, if
> possible, a check whether the issue might be caused by something
> unrelated (i.e., one of the these negative address space wrap arounds;
> running out of disk space) would be useful. Lastly, any chance that you
> can send me a link to that particular image you're using? Perhaps there
> is just something strange with that image.

To clarify: After the load process "gets hung up", apparently in the
preamble of Compiler-ar.70, the image is fully responsive. Neither the
image nor the VM is hung up, it's just that that load process has stopped
and an MCMergeBrowser with title "Merging Compiler-ar-70" has opened.

Sorry, I don't have a way to post an image right now.

Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas Wacknitz
In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3
 

Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>> In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to  
>> get a
>> closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?
>
> Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:

I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is  
available under this entry.
I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available for  
download.

Regards
Andreas
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Bert Freudenberg
 
On 17.07.2009, at 18:25, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:

> Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>>> In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to  
>>> get a
>>> closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?
>>
>> Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:
>
> I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is  
> available under this entry.
> I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available for  
> download.


There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If  
someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever  
unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who needs  
it compiles their own.

Alternatively, someone could set up compiling VMs on a build farm,  
which various projects do provide (even for free). That way we'd get  
more VM binaries (and hopefully the users would report back with  
problems).

- Bert -

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas.Raab
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
 
David T. Lewis wrote:
> To clarify: After the load process "gets hung up", apparently in the
> preamble of Compiler-ar.70, the image is fully responsive. Neither the
> image nor the VM is hung up, it's just that that load process has stopped
> and an MCMergeBrowser with title "Merging Compiler-ar-70" has opened.

Oh! Well, if there are no conflicts, just hit the "merge" button and
proceed. I'm not sure why it's doing this but there is a possibility
that it just thought it needed to do a merge when there was really no
reason to. (this is the expected behavior though if you've done local
mods to packages)

Cheers,
   - Andres
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Douglas Brebner
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
 
Bert Freudenberg wrote:

>
> On 17.07.2009, at 18:25, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:
>
>> Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to
>>>> get a
>>>> closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?
>>>
>>> Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:
>>
>> I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is
>> available under this entry.
>> I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available for
>> download.
>
>
> There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If
> someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever
> unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who needs
> it compiles their own.
>
I used to use Squeak on NetBSD before that machine broke. It's in pkgsrc
(NetBSDs packaging system) but that's meant to compile from source due
to the number of platforms it runs on (and pkgsrc is used by several OSs)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

David T. Lewis
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
 
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 06:46:32PM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

>
> On 17.07.2009, at 18:25, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:
>
> >Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:
> >
> >>On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>  
> >>wrote:
> >>>In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to  
> >>>get a
> >>>closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?
> >>
> >>Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:
> >
> >I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is  
> >available under this entry.
> >I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available for  
> >download.

The home page for unix (including Linux) VMs is http://www.squeakvm.org/unix/.
Traditionally this has included support for a fairly broad range of unix
platforms, including Linux. Regardless of the relative popularity of
various platforms, maintaining a broad range of support seems like
a fundamentally Good Thing To Do, as it helps flush out all sorts of
platform specific problems and generally makes it more likely that
the VM will remain portable whenever Linux becomes unfashionable.

Currently the home page does not have updates for closure-enabled VMs,
although I expect that we will be able to rectify this shortly. In the
mean time, you can use the closure enabled VM that Bryce has provided
for Linux systems (or of course just build your own; as long as you
are using an up to date VMMaker, it will have the necessary closure
support).

> There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If  
> someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever  
> unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who needs  
> it compiles their own.

Actually I have no clue how many non-Linux Unix users might be out
there. They certainly are a quiet lot, but they do seem to pop up with
questions from time to time.

> Alternatively, someone could set up compiling VMs on a build farm,  
> which various projects do provide (even for free). That way we'd get  
> more VM binaries (and hopefully the users would report back with  
> problems).

A build farm would be a good idea, if someone is in a position to
support it. Ian Piumarta has done this for many years using whatever
resources might be at hand. I suspect that this is largely a labor
of love, and it might not be appropriate for us to expect him to maintain
a complete build farm on his kitchen table indefinitely ;)

Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

David T. Lewis
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
 
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:01:39AM -0700, Andreas Raab wrote:

>
> David T. Lewis wrote:
> >To clarify: After the load process "gets hung up", apparently in the
> >preamble of Compiler-ar.70, the image is fully responsive. Neither the
> >image nor the VM is hung up, it's just that that load process has stopped
> >and an MCMergeBrowser with title "Merging Compiler-ar-70" has opened.
>
> Oh! Well, if there are no conflicts, just hit the "merge" button and
> proceed. I'm not sure why it's doing this but there is a possibility
> that it just thought it needed to do a merge when there was really no
> reason to. (this is the expected behavior though if you've done local
> mods to packages)
>

Wow, sometimes I really amaze myself ;-)

Sorry for the noise. As you can see I am not experienced with using MC
in a shared environment, so you can officially consider this to be your
dumb-user smoke test.

I can't reach SqueakSource at the moment to verify the process end-to-end,
but after manually completing the update, everything looks good and the
fib test gives 89 as expected.

So, on 64 bit Linux with 64 bit VM, closures are working fine.

Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas.Raab
 
David T. Lewis wrote:
> Sorry for the noise. As you can see I am not experienced with using MC
> in a shared environment, so you can officially consider this to be your
> dumb-user smoke test.

Which is always useful. I hadn't even thought this might happen to
someone ;-)

> I can't reach SqueakSource at the moment to verify the process end-to-end,
> but after manually completing the update, everything looks good and the
> fib test gives 89 as expected.
>
> So, on 64 bit Linux with 64 bit VM, closures are working fine.

Very, very good. Thanks so much!

Cheers,
   - Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas Wacknitz
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
 

Am 17.07.2009 um 18:46 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:

On 17.07.2009, at 18:25, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:

Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote:
In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to get a
closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?

Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:

I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is available under this entry.
I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available for download.


There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who needs it compiles their
I intend to create Solaris SPARC packages. Alas I have some problems with prerequisites at the moment. Libffi-3.0.8 has
  expected passes: 1049
  unexpected failures: 285
  unsupported tests: 15
I want to find out how to reduce the amount of failures (if possible). Then I will try to create real packages (not just tar files like on http://www.squeakvm.org/unix/)
I don't like the /usr/local locations in the archives that are provided at squeakvm because they violate the SysV specifications.
Alas I have to patch some places that were already fixed several months ago but nobody commited the changes.
Of course I am also waiting for the closure changes appearing in the UNIX sources...


Alternatively, someone could set up compiling VMs on a build farm, which various projects do provide (even for free). That way we'd get more VM binaries (and hopefully the users would report back with problems).
Wow, where is a SPARC build system? :D

Regards
Andreas

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Bert Freudenberg
 

On 17.07.2009, at 21:55, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:

>
> Am 17.07.2009 um 18:46 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:
>
>> On 17.07.2009, at 18:25, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:
>>
>>> Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas  
>>>> Raab<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> In any case, what is the process that users have to go through  
>>>>> to get a
>>>>> closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?
>>>>
>>>> Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:
>>>
>>> I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is  
>>> available under this entry.
>>> I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available  
>>> for download.
>>
>>
>> There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If  
>> someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or  
>> whatever unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then,  
>> everyone who needs it compiles their
> I intend to create Solaris SPARC packages. Alas I have some problems  
> with prerequisites at the moment. Libffi-3.0.8 has
>   expected passes: 1049
>   unexpected failures: 285
>   unsupported tests: 15
> I want to find out how to reduce the amount of failures (if  
> possible). Then I will try to create real packages (not just tar  
> files like on http://www.squeakvm.org/unix/)
> I don't like the /usr/local locations in the archives that are  
> provided at squeakvm because they violate the SysV specifications.
> Alas I have to patch some places that were already fixed several  
> months ago but nobody commited the changes.
> Of course I am also waiting for the closure changes appearing in the  
> UNIX sources...

/usr/local is just the default location for user-compiled software. If  
you are building system packages you can of course change that, use  
the prefix option for the configure script.

>> Alternatively, someone could set up compiling VMs on a build farm,  
>> which various projects do provide (even for free). That way we'd  
>> get more VM binaries (and hopefully the users would report back  
>> with problems).
> Wow, where is a SPARC build system? :D


SourceForge used to have a Compile Farm but when I looked now it was  
discontinued. But this one seems to be still alive:

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm

- Bert -


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas Wacknitz
 

Am 17.07.2009 um 22:22 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:


On 17.07.2009, at 21:55, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:


Am 17.07.2009 um 18:46 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:

On 17.07.2009, at 18:25, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:

Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote:
In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to get a
closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?

Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:

I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is available under this entry.
I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available for download.


There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who needs it compiles their
I intend to create Solaris SPARC packages. Alas I have some problems with prerequisites at the moment. Libffi-3.0.8 has
 expected passes: 1049
 unexpected failures: 285
 unsupported tests: 15
I want to find out how to reduce the amount of failures (if possible). Then I will try to create real packages (not just tar files like on http://www.squeakvm.org/unix/)
I don't like the /usr/local locations in the archives that are provided at squeakvm because they violate the SysV specifications.
Alas I have to patch some places that were already fixed several months ago but nobody commited the changes.
Of course I am also waiting for the closure changes appearing in the UNIX sources...

/usr/local is just the default location for user-compiled software. If you are building system packages you can of course change that, use the prefix option for the configure script.
/usr/local violates SysV specs. User compiled software should be installed to /opt for SysV. /usr/local is only valid for BSD and Linux systems.

Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Bert Freudenberg
 

On 17.07.2009, at 22:36, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:


Am 17.07.2009 um 22:22 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:


On 17.07.2009, at 21:55, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:


Am 17.07.2009 um 18:46 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:

On 17.07.2009, at 18:25, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:

Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote:
In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to get a
closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?

Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:

I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is available under this entry.
I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available for download.


There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who needs it compiles their
I intend to create Solaris SPARC packages. Alas I have some problems with prerequisites at the moment. Libffi-3.0.8 has
 expected passes: 1049
 unexpected failures: 285
 unsupported tests: 15
I want to find out how to reduce the amount of failures (if possible). Then I will try to create real packages (not just tar files like on http://www.squeakvm.org/unix/)
I don't like the /usr/local locations in the archives that are provided at squeakvm because they violate the SysV specifications.
Alas I have to patch some places that were already fixed several months ago but nobody commited the changes.
Of course I am also waiting for the closure changes appearing in the UNIX sources...

/usr/local is just the default location for user-compiled software. If you are building system packages you can of course change that, use the prefix option for the configure script.
/usr/local violates SysV specs. User compiled software should be installed to /opt for SysV. /usr/local is only valid for BSD and Linux systems.

Andreas

Ah. Good to have experts :) That should be fixed in configure then (or maybe configure even knows and we override its defaults?)

- Bert -


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas Wacknitz
 

Am 17.07.2009 um 22:55 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:


On 17.07.2009, at 22:36, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:


Am 17.07.2009 um 22:22 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:


On 17.07.2009, at 21:55, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:


Am 17.07.2009 um 18:46 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:

On 17.07.2009, at 18:25, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:

Am 17.07.2009 um 13:23 schrieb Damien Cassou:

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote:
In any case, what is the process that users have to go through to get a
closure-enabled VM on their preferred Unix flavor?

Download the 'GNU/Linux and other Unix' VM from:

I don't understand why UNIX is mentioned if only a Linux VM is available under this entry.
I really would like to see a real (and actual) UNIX VM available for download.


There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who needs it compiles their
I intend to create Solaris SPARC packages. Alas I have some problems with prerequisites at the moment. Libffi-3.0.8 has
 expected passes: 1049
 unexpected failures: 285
 unsupported tests: 15
I want to find out how to reduce the amount of failures (if possible). Then I will try to create real packages (not just tar files like on http://www.squeakvm.org/unix/)
I don't like the /usr/local locations in the archives that are provided at squeakvm because they violate the SysV specifications.
Alas I have to patch some places that were already fixed several months ago but nobody commited the changes.
Of course I am also waiting for the closure changes appearing in the UNIX sources...

/usr/local is just the default location for user-compiled software. If you are building system packages you can of course change that, use the prefix option for the configure script.
/usr/local violates SysV specs. User compiled software should be installed to /opt for SysV. /usr/local is only valid for BSD and Linux systems.

Andreas

Ah. Good to have experts :) That should be fixed in configure then (or maybe configure even knows and we override its defaults?)

I am not an expert for autoconf and related things. As far as I know /usr/local is the default and you have to override it with --prefix= options (usually several are available).
What it makes even more complicated is the fact that SysV asks not to use /opt/bin, opt/lib and so on but instead /opt/<package>/bin, /opt/<package>/lib and so on.
For example one could have /opt/squeak/ with sub directories bin, lib and what else is needed.
Compiling squeak has some prerequisites like gmp, mpfr and libffi that need to find homes, too (if not already available at default places).
As the aforementioned libraries are not delivered I have to build them or have to find providers (like OpenCSW or Blastwave). As I think that it will be more convenient
for Squeakers I intend to provide them in a separate package. So nobody needs to deal with 3rd party packages.
At the moment I am not sure whether to use /opt/squeak as the base directory or something different.

Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

David T. Lewis
In reply to this post by Andreas Wacknitz
 
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:

>  
> Am 17.07.2009 um 18:46 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:
> >
> >There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If  
> >someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever  
> >unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who  
> >needs it compiles their
> I intend to create Solaris SPARC packages. Alas I have some problems  
> with prerequisites at the moment. Libffi-3.0.8 has
>   expected passes: 1049
>   unexpected failures: 285
>   unsupported tests: 15
> I want to find out how to reduce the amount of failures (if possible).  

I don't know if SPARC is a 64 bit platform these days (i.e. 64 bit
C pointers by default), but if so please note that the 64 bit FFI changes
have not yet been merged, see http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7237

> Of course I am also waiting for the closure changes appearing in the  
> UNIX sources...

No need to wait, all of the necessary changes are already in the VMMaker
package. There is no unix-specific code involved.

Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unix VM closure enabled?

Andreas Wacknitz
 

Am 18.07.2009 um 00:40 schrieb David T. Lewis:

>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Andreas Wacknitz wrote:
>>
>> Am 17.07.2009 um 18:46 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:
>>>
>>> There are very few non-Linux Unix users in the Squeak community. If
>>> someone would step forward to maintain a Solaris or *BSD or whatever
>>> unixy VM binary they would be welcome. Until then, everyone who
>>> needs it compiles their
>> I intend to create Solaris SPARC packages. Alas I have some problems
>> with prerequisites at the moment. Libffi-3.0.8 has
>>  expected passes: 1049
>>  unexpected failures: 285
>>  unsupported tests: 15
>> I want to find out how to reduce the amount of failures (if  
>> possible).
>
> I don't know if SPARC is a 64 bit platform these days (i.e. 64 bit
SPARC v9 is 64 bit. My printed SPARC v9 spec is from 1994.
In Solaris usually the kernel is 64 bit, libraries are available in 32  
and 64 bit
(64 bit in a sparcv9 sub directory) and most applications in 32 bit.
As long as an application doesn't need a 64 bit address space there is  
no
need to have it 64 bit because unlike x86 / x64 you won't gain speed  
improvements
in 64. The prerequisites I mentioned are available in both depths (gmp  
and mpfr passing
all checks). Only libffi has many failing checks at the moment.
My plan is to create a working squeak VM first and then care for some  
improvements on
libffi and one or two packages. At the moment I am using Sun's GCC4SS  
as it generated
faster executables but it will make it necessary to at least install  
the appropriate run time
libraries. So I also consider to create a version that only depends on  
the system supplied
gcc-3.4.3.

> C pointers by default), but if so please note that the 64 bit FFI  
> changes
> have not yet been merged, see http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7237
Thanks for the pointer. I son't know yet whether it will be necessary  
to create a 64 bit
version. It seems as if most people are still satisfied with 32 bit  
and on SPARC this will
be faster.

>
>> Of course I am also waiting for the closure changes appearing in the
>> UNIX sources...
>
> No need to wait, all of the necessary changes are already in the  
> VMMaker
> package. There is no unix-specific code involved.
>
I still don't have experiences with VMMaker. It's a little bit  
confusing to have
sources on squeakvm.org and also VMMaker. I will try it out as soon as  
I have
a running squeak on Solaris...

Regards
Andreas
12