Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2008-06-30

The SCons wiki has moved to

18:51:57  *      stevenknight (n=[]( has joined #scons 
19:00:21  <stevenknight> hello, anyone else here for bugs? 
19:01:28  *      garyo-home (n=[]( has joined #scons 
19:02:19  <garyo-home>   Hi, folks.  Thought I'd log in & do some of my bug homework, but now I see it's tonight! 
19:02:42  <stevenknight> hi gary 
19:02:45  <stevenknight> just you and me so far 
19:02:55  <stevenknight> no thanks to my confusion about days...  :-/ 
19:02:56  <garyo-home>   OK; let me get my windows set up. 
19:03:15  <garyo-home>   yah, I thought it was going to be tomorrow, oh well, in some ways this is better. 
19:03:34  <stevenknight> hopefully greg will have seen the reply and show up as well 
19:03:50  <stevenknight> if not we need to decide if we go ahead just us two or not 
19:03:54  <garyo-home>   yes, his msg was only 1.5 hrs ago 
19:04:14  <garyo-home>   I think two is not a quorum, though we could do some obvious ones anyway... 
19:04:29  <stevenknight> true, just clear out the obvious consensus 
19:04:32  <stevenknight> that's still valuable 
19:05:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, I'm here, but not set up yet; give me a minute 
19:05:09  <garyo-home>   Hi, Greg! 
19:05:41  <stevenknight> np, take your time 
19:09:14  <garyo-home>   Sounds like the scons dinners have been fun. 
19:09:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'm up 
19:09:38  <garyo-home>   OK, shall we dive into the current issues then? 
19:09:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm ready 
19:10:00  <stevenknight> okay, 2098:  consensus 
19:10:06  <garyo-home>   2098: who should integrate?  Steven? 
19:10:07  <stevenknight> 1.x p3 
19:10:12  <stevenknight> yes, me 
19:10:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:10:18  <stevenknight> 2114: 
19:10:37  <stevenknight> 1.0x p2 david 
19:10:46  <garyo-home>   sounds right. 
19:10:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
19:10:53  <stevenknight> done 
19:10:59  <stevenknight> 2115: 
19:11:17  <stevenknight> any objections to 1.x p3? 
19:11:28  <garyo-home>   for doing it as its own separate task? 
19:11:42  <stevenknight> say more 
19:11:45  <garyo-home>   i.e. just making sconsign understand that special case 
19:11:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     it's the default; we'll have to triage those again, but it's fine. 
19:12:03  <stevenknight> yes, by default 
19:12:06  <garyo-home>   ok, fine. 
19:12:23  *      garyo-home avoids long sconf discussion 
19:12:25  <stevenknight> all right, 1.x p3 
19:12:48  <stevenknight> ah, right -- i get it 
19:13:00  <stevenknight> yes, not as part of the whole big SConf brouhaha on the MLs right now 
19:12:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sigh, things get out of control when one is gone; there's a silverfish crawling across my desk... 
19:13:20  <garyo-home>   greg: gross! 
19:13:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     very 
19:13:45  <garyo-home>   ok, on to 2116? 2116: I agree w/ you guys. 
19:13:52  <stevenknight> 2116:  1.0x p2 consensus 
19:13:56  <stevenknight> Benoit 
19:14:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:14:16  <stevenknight> 2117: 
19:14:32  <garyo-home>   I don't think scons should delete anything read-only. 
19:14:36  <stevenknight> i kind of like greg's classification, actually... :-) 
19:14:40  <garyo-home>   :-) 
19:14:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     er, it already does.... 
19:14:52  <stevenknight> yes 
19:14:54  <garyo-home>   greg: yes, you're right. 
19:15:05  <garyo-home>   ... e.g. before building. 
19:15:10  <stevenknight> i don't agree w/his solution (make it writable silently) 
19:15:21  <stevenknight> but would want some configurability / option that permits it 
19:15:23  <garyo-home>   steven: I agree, it's rude & could have bad consequences. 
19:15:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     actually, I was surprised that SCons deletes files before rebuilding them, but that's another discussion 
19:16:03  <garyo-home>   so can we just say wontfix? 
19:16:19  <stevenknight> i'd rather turn it into a feature request for the configurability 
19:16:36  <garyo-home>   OK, 2.x p3 feature req would be OK by me 
19:16:42  <stevenknight> i can go with 2.x 
19:16:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:16:55  <stevenknight> on reflection, it is definitely lower priority than other 1.x stuff 
19:17:00  <stevenknight> 2119: 
19:17:20  <stevenknight> consensus 1.0.x p2 
19:17:30  <garyo-home>   sure. 
19:17:28  <stevenknight> i'm definitely going to fix this soon for my own purposes 
19:17:43  <stevenknight> like, tomorrow 
19:17:58  <stevenknight> (but not check it into branches/core yet) 
19:17:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
19:18:00  <garyo-home>   OK. 
19:18:11  <stevenknight> okay, on to 2006h2? 
19:18:21  <garyo-home>   ok, I'm there. 
19:18:27  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has visitors at the door 
19:18:34  <garyo-home>   1437, consensus 
19:18:49  <stevenknight> yes, 1437 dup 
19:18:52  <stevenknight> done 
19:18:57  *      garyo-home needs a drink, brb 
19:19:27  <stevenknight> 1438: 
19:19:39  <stevenknight> consensus 1.x p3 me 
19:19:46  <stevenknight> i can go w/you guys on the time frame 
19:19:58  *      stevenknight whistles aimlessly while waiting for everyone else to return... 
19:20:06  <garyo-home>   hi, I'm back 
19:20:18  <garyo-home>   1438 1.x p3 is fine w/ me. 
19:20:26  <garyo-home>   There's plenty to do before then. 
19:20:50  <stevenknight> done 
19:21:01  <stevenknight> 1439:  i can go w/invalid 
19:21:23  <bdbaddog>     which spreadsheet are you guys on now? 
19:21:24  <stevenknight> i was thinking research because it *is* kind of a pain to hook up new builders 
19:21:28  <stevenknight> hey bill 
19:21:30  <garyo-home>   1439: and tell him to use src_builder?  I guess after this long he probably doesn't care anymore... 
19:21:30  <stevenknight> 2006h2 
19:21:47  <stevenknight> sure, as a courtesy for closing it out 
19:21:48  <bdbaddog>     Hey. I'll just be here a few, but I'll add what I can. 
19:21:55  <garyo-home>   Hi Bill. 
19:21:57  <stevenknight> bdbaddog:  cool 
19:22:19  <stevenknight> so 1439: invalid, point him to src_builder 
19:22:35  <garyo-home>   re 1439: I'd like a new ticket for making adding src builders easier. 
19:22:38  <stevenknight> i'd still like another issue for some feature (API extension?) to make it easier to hook up your own builders to our existing ones 
19:22:42  <garyo-home>   +1 
19:22:47  <stevenknight> +1 
19:22:58  <bdbaddog>     Like AddToCBuilder? 
19:23:20  *      stevenknight applauds garyo-home's ability to put things much more economically 
19:23:31  <garyo-home>   bdbaddog: Maybe, but let's not design it now, just make a ticket for later. 
19:23:33  <stevenknight> bdbaddog:  something like that 
19:23:54  <stevenknight> i'd genericize it somehow (wave hands mumble mumble) 
19:24:03  <garyo-home>   yes. 
19:24:12  <bdbaddog>     :) yeah. that's probably why it's not done already. 
19:24:43  <garyo-home>   1442, folks? 
19:24:46  <stevenknight> 1442:  sounds like greg's right 
19:25:02  <garyo-home>   In that case, maybe it's already better due to David's stuff? 
19:25:29  <stevenknight> maybe 
19:25:33  <garyo-home>   Anyone have a mingw env? 
19:26:01  <garyo-home>   ok, guess not. 
19:26:08  <stevenknight> not me 
19:26:23  <stevenknight> i really want to set up buildbots with the more common windows configs 
19:26:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1439: concur (I'm back, BTW) 
19:26:30  <stevenknight> one for MinGW, one for Cygwin, etc. 
19:27:36  <bdbaddog>     looks like I have cygwin with mingw-g77 installed. 
19:27:48  <stevenknight> the more i think about it, the more 1442 seems like a really interesting case 
19:27:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     how so? 
19:28:04  <stevenknight> conceptually i agree w/Greg's analysis that .f is clearly an error 
19:28:21  <stevenknight> but if so, how would you specify the weird corner case where you really *did* want to archive .f files? 
19:28:46  <stevenknight> after all, there's no reason why you should be prohibited from doing that 
19:29:00  <stevenknight> just because there's a more common use case of .f files generating .o files 
19:29:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     You need an "ar" builder, not a library builder 
19:29:13  <garyo-home>   ... or .c files for that matter.  Maybe File nodes would do it? 
19:29:33  <stevenknight> hmm, interesting distinction 
19:29:36  <bdbaddog>     doesn mingw builder setup fortran at all? 
19:29:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The archive builders take any file suffix 
19:30:26  <stevenknight> hmm, i think Gary's right -- File nodes circumvent the suffix checking 
19:30:41  <bdbaddog>     nope. mingw sets up the following: 
19:30:41  <bdbaddog>         gnu_tools = ['gcc', 'g++', 'gnulink', 'ar', 'gas', 'm4'] 
19:30:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     you sure? 
19:30:49  <stevenknight> nope 
19:31:18  <stevenknight> but i am worried that the distinction between a "library" (a .a file with objects) and an "archive" (the same suffix but with different contents) would be really subtle and easily lost 
19:32:02  <garyo-home>   It's a pretty atypical case though. 
19:32:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Uh, "ar" archives don't have a .a suffix; that's only for libraries. 
19:32:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The suffix is usually .ar or none at all 
19:32:58  <garyo-home>   greg: never seen such a thing myself. 
19:33:01  <stevenknight> yeah, the case is atypical 
19:33:10  <stevenknight> but i think the potential for confusion remains 
19:33:19  <stevenknight> if there is more than one builder that causes "ar" to be invoked 
19:33:48  <bdbaddog>     has anyone run into a build which used ar for things other than static libraries? 
19:33:50  <garyo-home>   They could always use Command() if Library() doesn't do what they want. 
19:33:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Really?  More than one builder causes 'gcc' to be invoked... 
19:34:11  <stevenknight> hmm, fair point.  i'm probably worrying needlessly 
19:34:21  <garyo-home>   I think so :-) 
19:34:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     bdbaddog, you're not old enough; the evolution was the other way around 
19:35:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     'ar' was used to build archives; eventually, archives of .o files were acceptable to the linker 
19:35:15  <garyo-home>   So where does that leave 1442? 
19:35:41  <stevenknight> dup 
19:35:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     dup 
19:35:48  <garyo-home>   ok. 
19:35:56  <bdbaddog>     dup of ? 
19:36:04  <bdbaddog>     mingw builder doesn't setup g77... 
19:36:09  <garyo-home>   1437 says the ssheet. 
19:36:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     That's "better error messages when tool not configured" 
19:37:10  <stevenknight> ah, but bill's point is good:  our default doesn't even make this possible 
19:37:17  <bdbaddog>     ahh. o.k. well it's a dup and also it's mingw doesn't setup g77 though. 
19:38:07  <bdbaddog>     o.k. gents. I may have a patch for that. I've gotta head out for a while though. I'll shoot an email later with pach if I get it working. 
19:38:20  <garyo-home>   There's also 1895, g77 and gfortran not detected on windows  which is about mingw. 
19:39:21  <garyo-home>   Seems like 1442 could be a dup of 1895. 
19:39:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (other way around; use the earlier issue as the basis) 
19:40:08  <garyo-home>   greg: you're right. 
19:40:59  <garyo-home>   1895 is research, p3, david.  So mark 1895 as dup of 1442, and make 1442 research, p3, david. 
19:41:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; 1443? 
19:41:58  <garyo-home>   There is now a SHFORTRANFLAGS, so I presume it could get set to /fPIC if appropriate. 
19:42:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     oops, brb 
19:42:36  <garyo-home>   But it's clearly David's if it's still broken.  1.0.x p3 David? 
19:45:03  <garyo-home>   Can we just give 1449 and 1450 to Jim, 1.x p3, keyword "quoting"? 
19:45:34  <garyo-home>   h'lo? 
19:46:06  *      sgk_ (n=[]( has joined #scons 
19:46:23  <sgk_> hmm, looks like the server i was connected to died 
19:46:29  <garyo-home>   Hi again, didn't even see you drop out. 
19:46:31  <sgk_> what was the last you got from me? 
19:46:41  <garyo-home>   "our default doesn't even make this possible" 
19:47:05  <sgk_> so maybe it's a one liner of 'g77' (or more likely 'gfortran') to the mingw tool list 
19:47:26  <sgk_> anyone object to that solution for...  1.x p3? 
19:47:33  <garyo-home>   Yes, just after you dropped out bdbaddog said: "o.k. gents. I may have a patch for that. I've gotta head out for a while though. I'll shoot an email later with pach if I get it working." 
19:47:53  <garyo-home>   If it's trivial, could be in 1.0.x, right? 
19:48:00  <sgk_> yeah 
19:48:06  <sgk_> 1.0.x p3? 
19:48:09  <garyo-home>   OK. 
19:48:12  <sgk_> done 
19:48:19  <garyo-home>   Can we just give 1449 and 1450 to Jim, 1.x p3, keyword "quoting"? 
19:48:34  <sgk_> +1 
19:48:39  <garyo-home>   sorry, "research" ? 
19:49:02  <garyo-home>   research was the ssheet consensus but I kind of think it's 1.x timeframe stuff. 
19:49:06  <sgk_> sure, research 
19:49:14  <sgk_> research p3 "quoting" 
19:49:20  <sgk_> done 
19:49:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     dkjak 
19:49:23  <garyo-home>   good. 
19:49:30  <sgk_> 1452: 
19:49:46  <sgk_> 1.x p3 me 
19:49:48  <garyo-home>   sounds like that one's yours, Steven. 
19:49:58  <garyo-home>   ok, done. 
19:50:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
19:50:15  <sgk_> 1456:  research, me "[VisualStudio](VisualStudio)" 
19:50:55  <garyo-home>   maybe, but I like "invalid" -- can't just have msvc as the *only* tool. 
19:51:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     true, but a better message would help 
19:51:47  <garyo-home>   fine, in that case it's dup of the "better errors" one, not [VisualStudio](VisualStudio). 
19:51:51  <sgk_> oh, hey, even better 
19:52:04  <sgk_> that makes it a toolchain issue and i can give it to you guys...  :-) 
19:52:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     that's why I said dup 1437, better messages 
19:52:20  <sgk_> invalid is good, though 
19:52:31  <sgk_> either one is fine w/me  
19:52:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Let's go with dup 
19:52:53  <garyo-home>   Yes, that gives the OP more info. 
19:53:00  <sgk_> ok, dup 1437 
19:53:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:53:23  <sgk_> 1458:  dup 1437 as well 
19:53:24  <garyo-home>   1458, same. 
19:53:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
19:53:54  <garyo-home>   1459, does Ludwig have a prototype of this already? 
19:53:55  <sgk_> 1459:  Ludwig 
19:54:10  <garyo-home>   +1 
19:54:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     He was looking at it; I think he has an idea 
19:54:44  <garyo-home>   Good. 
19:54:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     His experiments showed very little impact due to the size of buffer 
19:54:54  *      stevenknight has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 
19:55:12  <sgk_> Ludwig, any appropriate target milestone + priority 
19:55:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:55:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1460 
19:56:00  <sgk_> 1460:  i'm agnostic 
19:56:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     interesting choice of word... 
19:56:50  <garyo-home>   I can take it.  Any time; 1.0.x p3? 
19:56:56  <sgk_> works for me 
19:57:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works 
19:57:09  <garyo-home>   ok. 
19:57:22  <sgk_> 1462:  worksforme 
19:57:26  <sgk_> i'm a dual core 
19:57:39  <sgk_> it can be re-opened if it's still a problem elsewhere 
19:57:40  <garyo-home>   Sounds like you tried pretty hard to repro it. 
19:57:48  <garyo-home>   worksforme works for me. 
19:57:50  <sgk_> but my guess is some of Benoit's Taskmaster changes have fixed it 
19:57:53  <sgk_> :-) 
19:58:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     That would be my guess as well 
19:58:26  <garyo-home>   1464: agree, wontfix. 
19:58:33  <sgk_> done 
19:58:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:58:58  <sgk_> 1466:  me, research, [VisualStudio](VisualStudio) 
19:59:15  <sgk_> agree w/Greg that it might end up in toolchain, but i'm happy to be stuck with it in the meantime 
19:59:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, worst case you toss it to us. 
19:59:21  <sgk_> yes 
19:59:33  <garyo-home>   ok. 
19:59:40  <sgk_> 1468:  1.0.x p2? 
19:59:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     at least 
20:00:02  <sgk_> sounds pretty serious 
20:00:15  <garyo-home>   People must be working around it. 
20:00:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     working by blind luck is another way of saying pretty serious... 
20:00:33  <sgk_> yeah 
20:00:37  <sgk_> 1.0.x p1? 
20:00:43  <garyo-home>   ok w/ me. 
20:00:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
20:00:52  <sgk_> done 
20:01:21  <sgk_> 1469:  d'oh!  wonfix 
20:01:24  <sgk_> wontfix 
20:01:25  <sgk_> greg is right 
20:01:32  <garyo-home>   agreed. 
20:01:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
20:01:41  <sgk_> 1471:  closed 
20:01:43  <sgk_> 1476: 
20:01:57  <sgk_> research, me 
20:02:13  <sgk_> (sorry, trying to get through these quick, I have to start winding down) 
20:02:30  <sgk_> 1478:  research, me, [VisualStudio](VisualStudio) 
20:02:34  <garyo-home>   Me too.  OK, 1476 is yours. 
20:02:48  <sgk_> 1478:  gary, fixed? 
20:02:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1476: you're welcome to it 
20:02:53  <sgk_> 1483:  gary, fixed? 
20:03:05  <garyo-home>   1478: hopefully will be overtaken by vsvars.bat stuff 
20:03:31  <sgk_> yes re: 1478 & vsvars.bat 
20:03:51  <sgk_> 1488:  1.x p3 me 
20:04:07  <garyo-home>   1483: yes, I consider that fixed. 
20:04:44  <sgk_> cool 
20:04:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Now would be a good time for me to quit; our guests are watching the football game... 
20:05:01  <garyo-home>   I should go too.  Next week? 
20:05:03  <sgk_> and i have a dog that needs walking and won't wait 
20:05:09  <sgk_> same time? 
20:05:13  <garyo-home>   OK for me. 
20:05:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
20:05:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     later, all... 
20:05:24  <garyo-home>   good, bye for now! 
20:05:28  <sgk_> done (and i'll remember Monday night this time...) 
20:05:29  <sgk_> later.. 
20:05:36  *      sgk_ has quit ("Leaving") 
20:05:45  *      garyo-home has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906]")