Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-02-16

16:53:37 * bdbaddog ( has joined #scons 16:59:35 * GregNoel is no longer marked as being away 16:59:43 * Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@ has joined #scons 17:03:01 * sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-qeheyykyhlqublpj) has joined #scons 17:03:10 <GregNoel> Hey, Steven... 17:03:16 <sgk> hey 17:03:20 <Jason_at_Intel> hello steve 17:03:25 <bdbaddog> Greetings! 17:04:08 <GregNoel> I see bdbaddog, Jason_at_Intel, techtonik, and loonycyborg here; are you all here for the bug party? 17:04:21 <Jason_at_Intel> yep 17:04:27 <bdbaddog> Unless theres some other party going on.. ;) 17:05:05 * loonycyborg loves celebrating bugs :P 17:05:55 * sgk still hasn't recovered from the weekend 17:06:15 <GregNoel> Gary's on a tiny island in the Carribean (which I can't spell), so I doubt he's gonna show. Shall we start? 17:06:22 <sgk> let's do it 17:06:40 <GregNoel> 1910, sgk wanted to talk about it 17:06:59 <sgk> yeah, i updated with a patch and explanation of the (minor) dilemma 17:07:13 <sgk> there's this functionality i had totally forgotten about 17:07:26 <sgk> where if you set a BUILDERS entry to a function (or other callable) 17:07:35 <sgk> it's okay as long as calling that function returns a builder 17:07:54 <sgk> this makes it kind of like what we currently advise people do with AddMethod() 17:08:17 <sgk> except that AddMethod() is generic, so to make something added via AddMethod() look like a real Builder 17:08:25 <sgk> you have to do your own argument interpretation, etc. 17:09:05 <sgk> adding a callable wrapper to a BUILDERS entry makes it look more like a real Builder automatically 17:09:45 <GregNoel> What do you want to do with it? 17:09:54 <sgk> i wanted to discuss because supporting this features means the 1910 OP doesn't get his problem solved 17:10:10 <sgk> because he was setting BUILDERS to a function that didn't return a Builder 17:10:14 <sgk> which is a condition we can't quite catch 17:10:44 <sgk> i think the best we can do is document that you can add callables to BUILDERS 17:11:21 <sgk> and add the patch so if you add a non-Builder, non-callable to BUILDERS there's at least a coherent error message 17:11:26 <sgk> sound good? 17:11:37 <Jason_at_Intel> this is 1910? 17:11:41 <sgk> yes 17:11:42 <GregNoel> That sounds good to me 17:11:45 <Jason_at_Intel> I thought this was about scanners? 17:11:58 <sgk> erk... 17:12:00 <sgk> you're right 17:12:04 <sgk> next one in the spreadsheet, 780 17:12:05 <sgk> sorry 17:12:16 <Jason_at_Intel> ahh 17:12:21 <Jason_at_Intel> so 780 17:12:31 <sgk> 1910 i don't think needs discussion 17:12:51 <sgk> unless someone's eager to pick up my partial fix and track down the last failing test case 17:13:21 <Jason_at_Intel> mean is you add a builder directly to the env['BUILDERS'] that is a function .. and not a builder we have an issue 17:13:01 <bdbaddog> can you detect that the builder didn't return a builder? 17:13:31 <bdbaddog> I mean that the callable didn't return a builder on it's first call? 17:13:58 <sgk> bdbaddog: you're right, we could do that; i didn't think of that 17:14:25 <sgk> I was too focused on making it happen at SConscript read time 17:14:32 <bdbaddog> every now and then a synapse fires.. 17:14:38 <bdbaddog> :) 17:14:46 <sgk> ...or misfires... :-) 17:15:25 <bdbaddog> either way.. 17:15:38 <GregNoel> I think that sounds reasonable. Do you want to keep it and update the info, or should I try to make sense of it? 17:16:02 <sgk> okay, unless anyone objects, i'll take back the issue and try to finish that part of it 17:16:08 <GregNoel> done 17:16:15 <Jason_at_Intel> sounds good 17:16:26 <bdbaddog> +1 17:16:30 <sgk> onward... 17:16:30 <GregNoel> 2549? 17:16:39 <sgk> looks like consensus, wait for OP 17:16:53 <GregNoel> OK, bypass until next time 17:16:51 <Jason_at_Intel> so what about 1910? 17:17:22 <sgk> 1910: i uploaded a fix that's about 95% complete, but induces one regression 17:17:30 <sgk> it's reassigned to garyo 2.x p4 17:17:43 <sgk> he or anyone else can pick up and try to finish it 17:17:38 <GregNoel> 2552, consensus 17:18:05 <GregNoel> 2558, ditto 17:18:34 <sgk> 2558: i can go w/P3 so the OP gets some activity hopefully sooner than a P4 17:18:56 <GregNoel> I'm good with that 17:19:00 <bdbaddog> +1 17:19:03 <GregNoel> done 17:19:17 <sgk> 2562: consensus 17:19:20 <GregNoel> 2562, needs an owner 17:19:34 <bdbaddog> I'll take it 17:19:43 <GregNoel> done 17:19:55 <GregNoel> 2565 17:20:34 <bdbaddog> sounds like a doc only to me. 17:20:47 <sgk> 2565 feels like either a research thing, or else outright invalid 17:21:16 <sgk> research with an eye towards clarifying / expanding the doc 17:21:52 <GregNoel> After reading sgk's spreadsheet comments, I think fixing the doc so that fooCOMSTR and SHfooCOMSTR refer to each other is the right solution. 17:22:30 <GregNoel> It would have prevented the issue in the ML and then here. 17:20:40 <GregNoel> so 2565 is a small bit of editing, but needs someone who can take the time. 17:23:01 <Jason_at_Intel> +1 17:22:38 <bdbaddog> o.k. do we need to put sometihng in 1.3 docs indicating this will be changing in 2.0 ? 17:23:12 <bdbaddog> so env['SHCXXCOMSTR']='$CXXCOMSTR -shared_flag' ? 17:23:22 <GregNoel> It's not changing; that's the point. 17:23:49 <bdbaddog> oh.. o.k. I c read ur message wrong. 17:23:52 <Jason_at_Intel> I not sure.. but this might be a good idea to also see about adding a make_unique call when subst on some value 17:24:13 <GregNoel> Not in this issue, KISS 17:24:21 <bdbaddog> +1 doc only 17:24:30 <GregNoel> agree 17:24:40 <Jason_at_Intel> I know we have been getting long CLI lines ... when fixing this up this might be worth thinking about 17:25:13 <GregNoel> Not in this issue, open another issue if you want to think about it 17:25:24 <Jason_at_Intel> sure 17:26:03 <GregNoel> So, consensus for doc, but who and when? 17:27:15 <GregNoel> It's a small bit of editing. I'd take it, but my time is going to be so chopped up over the next couple of months, I'd hate to promise anything. 17:28:34 <sgk> 2565: i'll take it 17:28:38 <sgk> 2.x p3? 17:28:53 <GregNoel> Sooner? 2.1 p3? 17:29:00 <sgk> okay, 2.1 p3 17:29:08 <GregNoel> done 17:29:19 <GregNoel> 2566 17:29:28 <sgk> 2566: consensus garyo more info from OP 17:29:37 <GregNoel> yep 17:29:49 <GregNoel> 2568 17:30:31 <GregNoel> Bill and Gary say 2.1 (in the wrong column)... 17:30:34 <sgk> it's pretty easy, i was thinking a regex to match an arbitrary number of / or \ 17:30:51 <GregNoel> Or :? 17:31:15 <GregNoel> (separator for MacOS classic) 17:31:21 <sgk> heh 17:31:44 <sgk> just what we need, drop support for Python 1.5.2 while we add support for Mac OS 9 17:31:55 <GregNoel> {;-} 17:32:11 <GregNoel> I was just making the point that there could be other separators 17:32:28 <Jason_at_Intel> vms 17:31:25 <bdbaddog> os.pathsep ? 17:31:31 <bdbaddog> or os.dirsep? 17:31:42 <bdbaddog> I think python will give you the native character. 17:32:10 <sgk> right now it matches os.pathsep and explicit '/' 17:32:34 <sgk> sorry, os.sep, not os.pathsep 17:33:21 <sgk> give it to me, i'll knock it out quickly just to get it off the list 17:33:31 <GregNoel> OK, when? 17:33:33 <sgk> 2.1 p4? 17:33:38 <bdbaddog> +1 17:33:41 <GregNoel> done 17:34:11 <GregNoel> 2569, agree with Steven's comment 17:35:04 <GregNoel> If I knew what it was supposed to do, I could hack out a RE in a few minutes 17:35:45 <GregNoel> If someone writes a spec, I'll code it. 17:34:38 <sgk> 2569: Jason_at_intel, do .rc files behave like this issue implies? 17:34:55 <sgk> he's suggesting change the .rc scanner so it finds included files 17:35:06 <Jason_at_Intel> Have not used them for a while as they are replaced with a new format 17:36:16 <sgk> his RE is fine for matching any line of form 17:36:21 <sgk> KEYWORD KEYWORD "filename" 17:36:29 <sgk> the problem isn't lack of RE expertise 17:37:01 <sgk> it's whether or not .rc files can have lines that match that expansive RE and which aren't actually included files 17:37:04 <GregNoel> 'I want "filename" to be part of the resource' 17:37:37 <bdbaddog> push back to the filer to point us at a URL where the file's speced? 17:38:11 <GregNoel> RE evaluation is in C; the algorithm looks at each character at most once, so it doesn't matter how complicated it is. 17:38:36 <GregNoel> Cost is O(strlen) 17:39:10 <sgk> GregNoel: ? what you say is all true, but i don't see the relevance 17:39:21 <bdbaddog> well we ahve a bit of time to decide on this, lets defer it ? 17:39:44 <GregNoel> bdbaddog, I won't disagree with that. 17:40:20 <bdbaddog> can we punt and goto 2570? 17:40:38 <GregNoel> 2570 is consensus, and it's the last one 17:40:28 <Jason_at_Intel> the issue is about a new pattern that look for "filename" or <filename> 17:40:52 <sgk> that old pattern matched both < and " 17:40:54 <bdbaddog> I"m not sure it's really a bug yet. 17:40:55 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree that i worry that "" has other meanings.. such as being a string constant 17:41:05 <sgk> his issue is that we have a hard-coded list of keywords in the old RE: 17:41:17 <sgk> ICON|BITMAP|CURSOR|HTML|FONT|MESSAGETABLE|TYPELIB|REGISTRY|D3DFX 17:41:29 <sgk> and he wants to be able to match other custom keywords like XAML 17:41:33 <Jason_at_Intel> and new ones like xaml are not supported 17:41:45 <sgk> so his RE no longer looks for explicit keyword like the old one 17:42:17 <sgk> but matches any keyword in the second argument 17:43:10 <sgk> research, me 17:43:21 <sgk> i can send it to a day-job .rc expert 17:43:34 <GregNoel> That makes sense. +1 17:43:49 <Jason_at_Intel> +1 17:44:10 <GregNoel> done 17:44:23 <GregNoel> That seems to be it for the issues. 1.3? 17:44:42 <sgk> bdbaddog, how's it going? anything you could use help on? 17:44:47 <bdbaddog> I think it's just 2570, checkpoint and then go? 17:45:01 <bdbaddog> I'm trying to figure out if 2570 is really a bug. 17:45:56 <sgk> k 17:45:56 <bdbaddog> if you create an environment with no tool= spec, then later (on windows) say Tool('msvc')(env) 17:46:09 <bdbaddog> will that reset the tool? I don't think so 17:47:04 <bdbaddog> I think he was just getting lucky before because he was asking for the newest version of VC on the machine, when he installed one newer than the one he was asking for his logic broke. 17:47:17 <bdbaddog> Just taking a little time to get an appropriate VM setup. 17:48:34 <bdbaddog> hoping to resolve it in the next few days and get another checkpoint out. 17:49:10 <GregNoel> (silence) 17:49:28 <sgk> sounds good to me 17:49:55 <sgk> anyone think we should push the checkpoint w/out 2570? 17:50:18 <GregNoel> I'd prefer not. 17:50:27 <sgk> agreed, just double-checking 17:50:36 <Jason_at_Intel> from what i know the layout shoudl not change with the finial release 17:50:57 <bdbaddog> k. 17:51:13 <Jason_at_Intel> so getting working now will help when 2010 is finally released 17:51:37 <sgk> cool 17:51:45 <sgk> any other 1.3-related topics or questions? 17:51:57 <GregNoel> Is that all? If so, while Steven and Bill are here, I have a couple of off-topic things. 17:53:16 <Jason_at_Intel> well I am going to take off.. have bugs to fix 17:53:28 <Jason_at_Intel> till next time! 17:53:31 <GregNoel> cul 17:53:39 <sgk> later, thnx 17:53:50 * Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]) 18:05:38 <bdbaddog> k. I"m off to the gym. starting to train for a triathlon.. :) 18:05:53 <sgk> good luck 18:06:27 <GregNoel> agreed 18:08:58 <sgk> okay, later 18:08:58 <sgk> thnx 18:09:00 <GregNoel> cul, bye 18:09:07 * sgk (~sgk@ has left #scons 18:09:13 * GregNoel has been marked as being away 18:15:13 * loonycyborg has quit (Quit: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)