1. SCons
  2. Core
  3. SCons

Wiki

Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-07-20

16:50:31  *      Garyo (~[chatzilla@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:chatzilla@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) has joined #SCONS 
16:55:03  *      jason_at_intel (~[chatzilla@185.sub-75-205-7.myvzw.com](mailto:chatzilla@185.sub-75-205-7.myvzw.com)) has joined #SCONS 
16:55:21  *      bdbaddog (~[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-10-196.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-10-196.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has joined #SCONS 
17:03:18  *      sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-vdmoydnhvesvboyw) has joined #SCONS 
17:05:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Are we ready to go? 
17:05:44  <Garyo>        i am 
17:05:47  <jason_at_intel>       Hi Steve, think we found the cause of the temp file issue 
17:05:53  <sgk>  ready when everyone else is 
17:05:54  <jason_at_intel>       I am ready 
17:05:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1938 Gary took it 
17:05:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1891 
17:06:06  <sgk>  i saw your mail, that sounds exactly like what's going on 
17:06:42  <Garyo>        1891? 
17:07:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     That's what's on the spreadsheet. 
17:06:56  <sgk>  sorry, that reply was to jason 
17:07:00  <jason_at_intel>       I think it just needs a fix to mslink 
17:07:08  <sgk>  jason, let's stick to the issue list and we can discuss the tempfile thing in turn 
17:07:21  <sgk>  or at the end if we haven't gotten to it 
17:07:17  <jason_at_intel>       yep 
17:07:27  <jason_at_intel>       so 1891 
17:07:34  <jason_at_intel>       I think we need to fix mslink.py 
17:07:41  <jason_at_intel>       and this will work 
17:08:12  <sgk>  that makes sense 
17:08:07  <Garyo>        Agree it can't be that hard.  Who has time?  Jason, would you like to take a crack at it? 
17:08:19  <jason_at_intel>       I would be happy to 
17:08:27  <Garyo>        2.1 p3 jason? 
17:08:33  <jason_at_intel>       I will try it out in the Parts mslink version 
17:08:53  <jason_at_intel>       that should be easy to map back to the SCons version 
17:09:10  <jason_at_intel>       since it just a new set of actions 
17:08:59  <sgk>  cool, thanks 
17:09:03  <sgk>  2.1 p3 jason sounds good to me 
17:09:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:09:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2153 
17:09:31  <sgk>  2153:  this is the email jason was referring to 
17:09:36  <jason_at_intel>       so I sent a mail on this to steve.. summarized here 
17:09:54  <sgk>  because long-line tempfiles get created as as a side effect of expanding ${TEMPFILE} in the command line 
17:10:12  <sgk>  the file gets created when we expand the line for display, too 
17:10:32  <sgk>  and since that display expansion doesn't actually get executed, the tempfile deletion never happens 
17:10:51  <Garyo>        hmm, makes sense. 
17:10:18  <jason_at_intel>       not sure on what is the best fix... thinking about MD5 the string to store the tempfile name in the env 
17:11:08  <sgk>  Jason, do you or your intern have cycles to work w/me on fixing this? 
17:11:16  <jason_at_intel>       Yep 
17:11:20  <sgk>  it might be a little involved, because it's not happening at the right time 
17:11:40  <sgk>  but i can provide direction, and if you two have time for the coding+testing, it'll go quicker than if it's on my plate 
17:11:43  <sgk>  okay, cool 
17:11:56  <jason_at_intel>       need to know if the env we pass to the action is unique or not 
17:12:02  <sgk>  2.1 p2 jason then 
17:12:10  <Garyo>        +1 
17:12:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:12:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2575 I can post the long comment, but I have commitments that will prevent me from taking much part in the discussion. 
17:12:44  <jason_at_intel>       honestly we have this fixed in Parts without a chdir 
17:13:02  <sgk>  for zip?  or a more general fix? 
17:13:07  <jason_at_intel>       it was so critical, we just made our own zipfile builder 
17:13:10  <Garyo>        I don't think it's too involved, but that's cause I'm pretty sure just passing a prefix or prefix to eliminate to the zipfile stuff is the way to go 
17:13:20  <jason_at_intel>       zipfile, tarfile bz2file 
17:13:31  <jason_at_intel>       it all the same basic code 
17:14:00  <jason_at_intel>       we can review it when i visit 
17:14:28  <sgk>  let's do that 
17:14:34  <Garyo>        I thought at least zipfile can already run w/o chdir 
17:14:32  <jason_at_intel>       I don't know if greg is in the CA area or not 
17:14:41  <jason_at_intel>       I take it he would want to have a say 
17:14:40  <sgk>  greg's in San Diego 
17:14:56  <jason_at_intel>       that pretty far south.. correct? 
17:15:08  <sgk>  yes, prohibitively so 
17:15:27  <jason_at_intel>       :-(.. want to meet the master himself :-) 
17:15:31  <sgk>  but we could at least start looking at it 
17:15:36  <jason_at_intel>       yep 
17:15:41  <Garyo>        How about Greg posting the long comment anyway so we can discuss the interface in the Zip builder, then use your code to implement? 
17:15:51  <sgk>  ++ 
17:15:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Garyo, good idea 
17:16:08  <jason_at_intel>       sounds good 
17:16:23  <sgk>  leave it owned as issues@scons and revisit it after discussion? 
17:16:30  <Garyo>        I'm ok w/ that 
17:16:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     What to do with the issue in the meantime? 
17:16:46  <Garyo>        nothing? 
17:17:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ... with a meaning of review next time? 
17:16:59  <jason_at_intel>       is it research? 
17:17:22  <sgk>  yeah, either research or leave it as is, so we revisit it next time 
17:17:23  <Garyo>        I'm ok w/ research jason too -- that way we'll review it. 
17:17:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     research p1 then? 
17:18:02  <sgk>  done 
17:18:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Who should own it? 
17:18:18  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel) until you post the comment, then re-assign to Jason? 
17:18:19  <Garyo>        Jason imho.  Jason, when's your meeting with sk? 
17:18:38  <jason_at_intel>       aug 18-19 
17:19:10  <jason_at_intel>       I get there aug 17.. . I forget what time. 
17:19:16  <jason_at_intel>       leave early on saturday 
17:19:27  <Garyo>        Anyway we have plenty of time to discuss on the ML 
17:18:53  <Garyo>        ok 
17:18:57  <sgk>  ok 
17:19:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:19:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1450 
17:19:22  <jason_at_intel>       ya so this bug 
17:19:54  <Garyo>        1450: Jason, do you have anything that would actually break? 
17:19:56  <jason_at_intel>       My concern is that the fix seems tied to a given version of mslink 
17:20:13  <jason_at_intel>       what about other tools? 
17:20:23  <Garyo>        Yeah, it's a fair point -- newlines in a command line makes me nervous too, even if it works now 
17:20:38  <jason_at_intel>       I might be missing something. 
17:20:46  <jason_at_intel>       but i think more testing is needed 
17:21:02  <Garyo>        Could have two versions TEMPFILE and TEMPFILESPACES or something (yuck) 
17:21:06  <jason_at_intel>       I am under the view that minus link 
17:21:11  <jason_at_intel>       most tools would take a file in a different way 
17:21:09  <sgk>  good lord, a command line that actually blows out the temp file limit?  131K characters? 
17:21:34  <Garyo>        sgk: I think it blows out the line length limit, hence the newlines. 
17:21:54  <Garyo>        and yes, that's a big cmd line! :-/ 
17:22:02  <jason_at_intel>       per line 
17:22:03  <sgk>  the CMD line length limit is already exceeded, that's why it's getting put in the temp file 
17:22:12  <sgk>  i'm trying to figure out if there are two limits at work here 
17:22:43  <sgk>  or at least, our notion of the CMD line length is exceeded 
17:23:01  <sgk>  (bus coming in ~1-2 minutes, i'll have an interrupt) 
17:23:12  <Garyo>        The ticket says it generates LNK1170, a linker error (not cmd.exe) 
17:23:35  <sgk>  good point 
17:23:46  <sgk>  it's the linker that interprets the @tmpfile thing 
17:23:57  <sgk>  gotta run, biab 
17:23:59  *      sgk has quit (Quit: sgk) 
17:24:02  <jason_at_intel>       the fix was to make a new line before that link limit was hit 
17:25:28  <Garyo>        yes -- the fix in the post is to just join all the elements with newlines... 
17:25:57  <Garyo>        I just googled it and even vs2010 has this limit (128k chars on a line) and the suggested workaround is the same, use newlines 
17:26:17  <jason_at_intel>       I believe the icl, cl and link tools handle input files in this format 
17:27:05  *      sgk (~[sgk@67.218.107.184](mailto:sgk@67.218.107.184)) has joined #SCONS 
17:27:16  <sgk>  hello again 
17:27:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     So what to do with the issue?  We've pretty much reached the discussion limit. 
17:27:19  <Garyo>        right.  Your point is that TEMPFILE could be used for other tools which might barf on newlines, right? 
17:27:31  <jason_at_intel>       yep 
17:27:47  <Garyo>        I think either (a) an arg to TEMPFILE for what spacer to use, or (b) two versions of TEMPFILE 
17:28:05  <jason_at_intel>       ... I think it would be easy to tweak tempfile to workaround this however.. I think 
17:28:20  <sgk>  yeah, we can make TEMPFILE configurable in some way 
17:28:31  <Garyo>        that'd be my 1st choice. 
17:28:58  <jason_at_intel>       if we can pass in a separator value to be used to the $Tempfile call.. i do stuff like this in Parts with the mappers objects 
17:29:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     So what to do with the issue?  We've pretty much reached the discussion limit. 
17:29:23  <sgk>  jason 2.1 p3 ? 
17:29:28  <jason_at_intel>       Since I seem to be fixing it.. I can take a stab at it 
17:29:40  <Garyo>        Jason, if you'll investigate it that'd be awesome. 
17:29:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:29:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2281 I'll go with research sk; what priority? 
17:30:11  <sgk>  i think it's a corner case, so I'd suggest p4 
17:30:19  <Garyo>        fine w/ me 
17:30:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:30:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2285 
17:30:53  <sgk>  2.1 p4 sk 
17:31:09  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:31:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2380 
17:31:11  <Garyo>        I think it has to be -- only you understand that stuff 
17:31:19  <sgk>  yeah 
17:31:21  <sgk>  :-( 
17:31:44  <jason_at_intel>       I woudl want to talk to you about this as well when i visit 
17:31:54  <Garyo>        2380?  Is it controversial? 
17:31:55  <sgk>  2380:  2.1 p4 ...  who? 
17:32:05  <jason_at_intel>       I want Scons to handle symlink and hardlinks on windows 
17:32:19  <jason_at_intel>       I Have it working.. but it really needs fixes in SCons 
17:33:04  <jason_at_intel>       then there is permission issues on windows.. so link might have to copy 
17:33:20  <Garyo>        I could do it but not for 2.1.  If it's me, it'd be 2.2 p3 garyo 
17:33:58  <Garyo>        (2380, not symlinks on windows of course) 
17:34:03  <sgk>  since it's low priority, 2.x p3 and punt on assigning someone for now? 
17:34:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hearing no objection, done 
17:34:50  <Garyo>        ok 
17:34:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1745 
17:35:09  <Garyo>        see my comment 
17:35:16  <jason_at_intel>       ya.. but the issue is related to the File.<api> that needs to replace all os.<fileapi> calls 
17:35:38  <jason_at_intel>       :-) 
17:35:38  <sgk>  we've been loading up jason 
17:35:39  <Garyo>        jason, I think 1745 can be fixed w/o any of that. 
17:35:54  <sgk>  i see bdbaddog's signed in, is bill here? 
17:35:59  <bdbaddog>     yes 
17:36:48  <sgk>  bill, any of these look up your alley? 
17:36:20  <jason_at_intel>       why i think making all files precious is better than deleting them by default 
17:37:08  <Garyo>        ok, but the minimal change for 1745 is just to make the .ilk file a side effect. 
17:37:25  <sgk>  ah 
17:37:25  <jason_at_intel>       so is there anyway we can modify the object builder on windows? 
17:37:29  <Garyo>        Making incremental links work should maybe be a separate ticket. 
17:37:29  <bdbaddog>     so mslink emitter work then right? 
17:37:31  <jason_at_intel>       I am not sure where that is 
17:37:53  <Garyo>        bdbaddog: seems like it to me 
17:37:54  <sgk>  agree w/garyo re: a separate ticket for incremental links 
17:38:11  <jason_at_intel>       so this bug directly, is just a addition to .ilk files 
17:38:16  <jason_at_intel>       as a sideeffect 
17:38:24  <jason_at_intel>       given that the flags support it 
17:38:31  <bdbaddog>     are the .ilk's always generated? 
17:38:45  <bdbaddog>     or do some ms flags enable/disable them? 
17:38:46  <jason_at_intel>       there is some flag to force no incremental build 
17:38:47  <Garyo>        unless /noincremental or something like that 
17:39:08  <Garyo>        but I think it's ok to declare a side effect that doesn't get generated 
17:39:12  <Garyo>        (right?) 
17:39:28  <sgk>  i think so 
17:39:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I think so, too 
17:39:18  <bdbaddog>     o.k. I can take it then. 
17:39:27  <Garyo>        thanks! 
17:39:38  <bdbaddog>     if the scope is .ilk's get deleted with --clean afterwards. 
17:39:54  <Garyo>        agreed, minimal scope 
17:39:59  <sgk>  yeah, if it turns into something bigger than that, we should re-review it 
17:40:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     milestone and priority? 
17:40:19  <Garyo>        2.1 p4, imho 
17:41:35  <sgk>  sounds good, bdbaddog++ 
17:40:23  <sgk>  the only pitfall i can think of is if non-existent side-effect files trigger unnecessary rebuilds 
17:40:29  <sgk>  i don't think they do, but i don't remember 
17:40:47  <bdbaddog>     sgk: 99% sure you're right 
17:40:50  <Garyo>        sgk: I'm pretty sure not. 
17:41:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, I'm pretty sure they don't; that's why Russel uses them in the LaTeX builder. 
17:40:45  <sgk>  we should set a target date for 2.1 
17:40:23  <bdbaddog>     when are we thinking 2.1 will be? 
17:40:50  <sgk>  discuss after the issues? 
17:41:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     milestone and priority? 
17:41:41  <Garyo>        roadmap says 2.1 rc sept, 2.1 final oct. 
17:42:04  <sgk>  1745:  2.1 p4 bdbaddog 
17:42:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:42:18  <jason_at_intel>       ahh the option is /INCREMENTAL 
17:42:51  <sgk>  why'd they pick an obscure option like that to control incremental linking?  :-) 
17:42:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2355 
17:43:12  <Garyo>        2355 clearly needs research. 
17:43:34  <jason_at_intel>       I agree 
17:44:49  <jason_at_intel>       worse case the builder can add a cd <dir> && before the command is the subprocess thing does not work 
17:44:03  <Garyo>        Greg, would you like to look into the subprocess thing? 
17:45:00  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Er, no.  I already know chdir= doesn't affect the main process on a Real Operating System; the question is about lesser operating systems. 
17:45:24  <bdbaddog>     You mean like MacOS right...;) 
17:45:57  <jason_at_intel>       should be simple to test 
17:46:24  <Garyo>        Simple to test, a bit scary to implement I think 
17:46:27  <sgk>  heh 
17:45:21  <Garyo>        In any case it doesn't seem practical to get into 2.1.  How about aiming for 2.2? 
17:46:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Well, we've always had converting to subprocess() as a goal, but not in 2.1 I don't believe. 
17:47:32  <bdbaddog>     GN: I agree.. 2.2 
17:47:33  <Garyo>        So maybe this will just fall out of that conversion? 
17:47:38  <Garyo>        That'd be great. 
17:47:40  <jason_at_intel>       it seem doing subprocess in SCons first then chdir seem to be the best order 
17:47:50  <Garyo>        Agreed. 
17:47:51  <bdbaddog>     JAI: +1 
17:48:19  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  looks like it's ok on windows, the cwd= argument is passed to [CreateProcess](CreateProcess)() 
17:48:49  <sgk>  yeah, subprocess first 
17:48:55  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:48:59  <bdbaddog>     should we file a bug for that? 
17:49:11  <sgk>  if there isn't one already open, yes 
17:50:09  <bdbaddog>     1955 might be part of that.. 
17:50:24  <Garyo>        was just looking at that one 
17:50:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     What to do with this issue?  We're running short on time. 
17:51:10  <bdbaddog>     2.2 
17:51:14  <Garyo>        2.2 (but after subprocess), p2, whoever does subprocess. 
17:51:14  <sgk>  2.2 sounds right 
17:51:19  <jason_at_intel>       Say it depend on SCons Subprocess work 
17:51:43  <sgk>  1955 is dup with others that deal with long lines 
17:51:53  <sgk>  so I'll open an issue for the subprocess work 
17:52:04  <sgk>  and then we make 2355 depends on that one 
17:52:14  <Garyo>        sgk: +1 
17:52:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, yes, but what for this issue? 2.2 p2?  Who owns it? 
17:52:01  <jason_at_intel>       I might be able to help with that as well 
17:52:09  <jason_at_intel>       as Parts does this in SCons... 
17:52:26  <sgk>  jason_at_intel:  cool, thanks 
17:52:35  <jason_at_intel>       not sure what is scons defines the default "SPAWN" function however.. so i have not made a patch to SCons 
17:53:05  <Garyo>        Greg: I recommend assigning to sgk for now, he can reassign later if desired. 
17:53:11  <bdbaddog>     +1 
17:53:12  <bdbaddog>     :) 
17:53:13  <sgk>  sounds good 
17:53:18  <jason_at_intel>       +1 
17:53:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:53:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     That covers the issues@scons issues; on to the new issues. 
17:53:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2649 I'll go with research sk; what priority? 
17:53:40  <Garyo>        p3 
17:54:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk?  What say you? 
17:54:33  <sgk>  yes 
17:54:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:54:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2650 consensus review next time 
17:54:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2657 
17:55:14  <Garyo>        2.1 p2 sk 
17:55:19  <jason_at_intel>       Glad i have not seen this on our 64-bit boxes yet 
17:55:26  <sgk>  consensus 2.1 p2 sk done 
17:55:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:55:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2660 consensus research sk; what priority? 
17:55:40  <sgk>  p3 
17:56:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:56:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2661 consensus 2.1 p2 Bill 
17:56:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2662 OK, I'll take it as 2.2 p4 
17:56:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2663 consensus 2.1 p3 Bill 
17:56:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     That appears to be it for the day...  Anything else? 
17:56:28  <Garyo>        nice work all, just under an hour 
17:56:32  <sgk>  oh, heh:  my comment about 2661 was "try to keep SCons reasonably current with VC tools" 
17:56:34  <bdbaddog>     1.3.1.. push out from last checkpoint? 
17:57:04  <sgk>  yes 
17:56:56  <Garyo>        bdbaddog: absolutely.  No complaints whatsoever that I've heard. 
17:57:49  <bdbaddog>     what about last 2.0.1 checkpoint? release as 2.0.1? rebranch to remove extra changes? other? 
17:58:49  <Garyo>        I think we should try not to be pedantic -- push out as 2.0.1 as is, let's get going on 2.1 work. 
17:59:15  <Garyo>        (?) 
17:59:21  <bdbaddog>     +1 from me. 
18:00:06  <sgk>  +1 
18:00:31  <jason_at_intel>       +1 for me... I think the patches added here make the first drop we can use at work without breaking anything 
18:01:49  <jason_at_intel>       ( since 1.2) 
18:01:36  <bdbaddog>     K. then I'll try and roll out 1.3.1 and 2.0.1 this weekend. 
18:01:46  <Garyo>        yay bdbaddog! 
18:01:29  <sgk>  so 2.1 release candidate in september--shall we pick a week to target? 
18:01:56  <bdbaddog>     I'm on vaca the whole first week thereof. 
18:02:09  <bdbaddog>     so later in ssept would be better. 
18:02:42  <sgk>  hmm, looking at the roadmap, i realize my real question is, when do we want to start releasing pre-2.1 checkpoints? 
18:03:00  <sgk>  the roadmap suggests one in july and one in august 
18:03:14  <sgk>  i'm trying to give myself a tangible near-term deadline to get going on some of these things 
18:03:51  <Garyo>        Don't think we have enough in yet for one now.  Maybe end of July? 
18:03:17  <bdbaddog>     has trunk diverged from 2.0.1 much? 
18:03:57  <sgk>  not much yet, but I'm about to start making some big doc changes 
18:04:01  <Garyo>        I'll try to get a few more things done soon. 
18:04:12  <Garyo>        This weekend e.g. 
18:04:26  <sgk>  okay, ditto 
18:04:52  <bdbaddog>     so checkpoint 7/31? 
18:05:01  <Garyo>        Let's aim for that. 
18:05:05  <sgk>  sounds like a good stake in the ground 
18:05:07  <bdbaddog>     k. 
18:05:30  <sgk>  any other issues to cover? 
18:06:09  <sgk>  going once... 
18:06:10  <jason_at_intel>       not from me... I will send some questions tomorrow to get tempfile working 
18:06:11  <Garyo>        none here 
18:06:11  <bdbaddog>     nope. 
18:06:13  <sgk>  going twice... 
18:06:18  <sgk>  okay, sold 
18:06:24  <sgk>  thanks for the good work, everyone 
18:06:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     G'night all... 
18:06:40  <Garyo>        bye 4 now 
18:06:43  <bdbaddog>     gnight 
18:06:44  <sgk>  bye 
18:06:46  *      sgk (~[sgk@67.218.107.184](mailto:sgk@67.218.107.184)) has left #SCONS 
18:06:47  <jason_at_intel>       night! 
18:06:58  *      You have been marked as being away 
18:07:22  *      jason_at_intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.6/20100625231939]) 
21:23:49  *      Garyo has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.7/20100713130626]) 
23:42:18  *      bdbaddog has quit (Quit: Leaving.) 

Updated