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) has joined #SCONS 16:55:03 * jason_at_intel (~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) has joined #SCONS 17:03:18 * sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-vdmoydnhvesvboyw) has joined #SCONS 17:05:37 <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> 1938 Gary took it 17:05:57 <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> 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> done 17:09:08 <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> done 17:12:14 <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> 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> What to do with the issue in the meantime? 17:16:46 <Garyo> nothing? 17:17:02 <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> research p1 then? 17:18:02 <sgk> done 17:18:02 <GregNoel> Who should own it? 17:18:18 <sgk> 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> done 17:19:04 <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) has joined #SCONS 17:27:16 <sgk> hello again 17:27:18 <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> 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> done 17:29:52 <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> done 17:30:34 <GregNoel> 2285 17:30:53 <sgk> 2.1 p4 sk 17:31:09 <GregNoel> done 17:31:11 <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> Hearing no objection, done 17:34:50 <Garyo> ok 17:34:49 <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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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: looks like it's ok on windows, the cwd= argument is passed to 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> 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> 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> done 17:53:18 <GregNoel> That covers the issues@scons issues; on to the new issues. 17:53:18 <GregNoel> 2649 I'll go with research sk; what priority? 17:53:40 <Garyo> p3 17:54:06 <GregNoel> sgk? What say you? 17:54:33 <sgk> yes 17:54:38 <GregNoel> done 17:54:41 <GregNoel> 2650 consensus review next time 17:54:41 <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> done 17:55:31 <GregNoel> 2660 consensus research sk; what priority? 17:55:40 <sgk> p3 17:56:08 <GregNoel> done 17:56:14 <GregNoel> 2661 consensus 2.1 p2 Bill 17:56:14 <GregNoel> 2662 OK, I'll take it as 2.2 p4 17:56:14 <GregNoel> 2663 consensus 2.1 p3 Bill 17:56:14 <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> 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) 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 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.6/20100625231939]) 21:23:49 * Garyo has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.7/20100713130626]) 23:42:18 * bdbaddog has quit (Quit: Leaving.)

Updated