1. SCons
  2. Core
  3. SCons

Wiki

Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-08-24

16:43:36  *      jason_at_intel (~[chatzilla@220.sub-75-207-216.myvzw.com](mailto:chatzilla@220.sub-75-207-216.myvzw.com)) has joined #SCONS 
16:54:35  *      garyo (~[garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) has joined #SCONS 
17:02:56  *      sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-zskmujhtignuxavr) has joined #SCONS 
17:03:07  <sgk>  hello, who's here? 
17:03:11  <garyo>        Hi Steven 
17:03:13  <jason_at_intel>       Hi Steve! 
17:03:55  <sgk>  hi guys 
17:04:03  *      sgk struggles with getting his windows arranged properly 
17:04:42  *      garyo is on a tiny screen laptop, everything's maximized all the time 
17:04:20  <sgk>  whew!  okay 
17:04:42  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel) here? 
17:05:03  <garyo>        Haven't heard from him yet 
17:05:27  <sgk>  no bdbaddog either 
17:09:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm here, but I can't stay long... 
17:09:32  <garyo>        Hi Greg -- let's get going then. 
17:09:52  <sgk>  let's get going then, fortunately not too many bugs tonight 
17:09:52  <garyo>        Let's start w/ 2674 I think 
17:10:26  <sgk>  2674:  defer to next time to see if the OP comes up with anything? 
17:10:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes, 2674...  seems like consensus to defer 
17:10:34  <garyo>        agreed. 
17:10:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:10:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2675 
17:11:01  <garyo>        2675 is either bill or me I think 
17:11:15  <garyo>        I think Bill was talking to this guy on the list 
17:11:28  <sgk>  yeah, i'd say bdbaddog unless you're really itching to tackle it 
17:11:39  <garyo>        not at the moment :-/ 
17:11:45  <sgk>  fair enough :-) 
17:11:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     priority and milestone? 
17:11:55  <sgk>  research bdbaddog? 
17:12:17  <garyo>        or just 2.1 p3, I think msvc issues are important 
17:11:57  <jason_at_intel>       I don't think that it should be done 
17:12:24  <garyo>        jason, huh? 
17:12:34  <sgk>  jason_at_intel:  why not? 
17:12:34  <garyo>        (oh, the fallback) 
17:12:42  <jason_at_intel>       Ya fallback 
17:12:42  <sgk>  garyo:  why not? 
17:12:53  <jason_at_intel>       if you say 64-bit build that .. not 32-bit 
17:13:19  <jason_at_intel>       fallback is dangerous 
17:13:31  <jason_at_intel>       people will get stuff they don't expect 
17:13:34  <sgk>  is this config explicitly saying 64-bit?  I thought the situation was that it was using a default 
17:13:33  <garyo>        I think it should be done. He's not specifying anything; scons should make a working exe with whatever compiler you have. 
17:13:41  <sgk>  what garyo said 
17:13:50  <sgk>  agree that if you explicitly configure 64-bit it should fail 
17:13:55  <garyo>        yes 
17:14:05  <jason_at_intel>       sure.. that is not so bad.. still has risk. 
17:14:27  <jason_at_intel>       but i will not push it :-) 
17:14:32  <sgk>  sure, but people who care about that risk have an easy way to do so:  configure the TARGET_ARCH 
17:14:26  <garyo>        so bdbaddog 2.1 p3? 
17:14:36  <sgk>  bdbaddog 2.1 p3 
17:14:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:15:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2676 
17:15:26  <garyo>        I submitted that just to record it.  3.x is fine w/ me. 
17:15:30  <jason_at_intel>       is this about the CPPDEFINES setup option? 
17:15:35  <sgk>  3.x sounds good 
17:15:45  <jason_at_intel>       agreed 
17:15:59  <garyo>        Basically yes, Jason -- CPPDEFINES is fixed, but there are other theoretical cases. 
17:16:58  <jason_at_intel>       right.. just checking my understanding 
17:16:06  <garyo>        ok 
17:16:25  <sgk>  3.x p4, don't need to fill in a name now? 
17:16:41  <garyo>        sgk: agree w/ 3.x p4 no name. 
17:16:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo, what other than CPPDEFINES?  Remember, CPPDEFINES must also generate -DFOO=bar, so it's not necessarily typical. 
17:17:35  <garyo>        Greg: no actual cases I can think of now.  More a question of hardcoding CPPDEFINES in a few places where we should probably be more general. 
17:17:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Ah, in that case I'm fine with 3.x p4 
17:18:09  <jason_at_intel>       I was thinking CPPFLAGS or LINK flags often have var=val 
17:18:41  <garyo>        But I don't think we handle dicts in either case there. 
17:18:56  <jason_at_intel>       true 
17:18:41  <jason_at_intel>       plus you could use it to help deal with linking static vs dynamic on unix 
17:19:08  <garyo>        yes, Bstatic/dynamic could be useful.  But changing it when we get there will not be hard. 
17:18:39  <sgk>  let's do 3.x p4, we can move it to research when we re-prioritize those 
17:16:26  <garyo>        2677 research sk? 
17:19:56  <sgk>  any dissent from research p2 sk? 
17:20:04  <garyo>        nope 
17:20:07  <jason_at_intel>       not here 
17:20:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     none, although I think allowing variant dirs to be under src dirs to be dangerous 
17:21:02  <garyo>        That would be a bit ... unusual. 
17:21:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Note that there's one anomoloy (sp) in the treatment already; we don't need to make it worse. 
17:21:44  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  i conceptually agree, i think it's more likely this ends up being a doc fix once I clear my head around it again 
17:21:20  <jason_at_intel>       I was under the view this was about having these values not under the SConstruct directory 
17:21:40  <garyo>        Jason: I think that's what it is about.  Build dir entirely elsewhere. 
17:22:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Build dir outside top dir works fine; I use it all the time. 
17:22:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     but you must specify the directory; it's not built by default. 
17:22:24  <jason_at_intel>       it can be done... it just that relative paths don't work as expected here 
17:22:29  <jason_at_intel>       abs paths do 
17:23:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     If that's his problem, the bug is INVALID 
17:23:14  <sgk>  (almost shuttle time) 
17:23:28  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  good point 
17:23:42  <jason_at_intel>       clarification needed? 
17:24:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     needs more info, so ask OP and defer? 
17:24:16  <jason_at_intel>       +1 
17:24:22  <sgk>  okay by me 
17:24:32  <sgk>  biab 
17:24:34  *      sgk has quit (Quit: sgk) 
17:24:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2278 
17:25:15  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is just looking at this for the first time; give me a minute to research 
17:25:16  <garyo>        Defer a week to see if OP replies. 
17:26:37  *      sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-vcwojyshrkoeayvj) has joined #SCONS 
17:26:48  <garyo>        Looks like some path needs to be canonicalized to remove ".." to me 
17:26:56  <garyo>        Hi Steven, just on 2278 
17:27:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo, agree defer 
17:27:51  <jason_at_intel>       +1 defer and see if OP replies 
17:28:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:28:37  <garyo>        OK, skip 2249 since it's bdbaddog's and he's not here? 
17:28:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2249, no comments, so looks like defer again? 
17:29:00  <garyo>        yes 
17:29:14  <garyo>        2485 I think I understand now. 
17:29:43  *      sgk_ (~[sgk@67.218.104.161](mailto:sgk@67.218.104.161)) has joined #SCONS 
17:29:53  <garyo>        Configure() is updating the library node's signature, which makes it seem up to date. 
17:29:54  *      sgk has quit (Disconnected by services) 
17:29:57  *      sgk_ is now known as sgk 
17:30:21  <sgk>  okay, i think i'm back 
17:30:21  <garyo>        I suspect 2485 will be hard to fix. 
17:30:26  <garyo>        Hi again 
17:30:40  <jason_at_intel>       do you know what is going on? 
17:30:48  <garyo>        Steven, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at 2485 some time. 
17:30:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm...  Side effect from BSR? 
17:30:54  <garyo>        What's BSR? 
17:31:03  <garyo>        (wait, I know) 
17:31:19  <garyo>        No, I think it's just a long-standing SConf bug. 
17:31:31  <garyo>        [CheckLibrary](CheckLibrary)() actually builds a test program and links it to that lib... 
17:31:46  <garyo>        which means the lib gets a Node and it gets updated when the test prog is built. 
17:32:06  <garyo>        Then the main world gets the wrong (updated) sig from the lib 
17:32:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     ah 
17:31:33  <sgk>  garyo:  put my name on it so it stays on the radar screen 
17:32:42  <garyo>        OK, I'll add your name.  Anyway I think it's out of research mode now, we should assign it a milestone/pri. 
17:32:52  <garyo>        I'm thinking 2.x p3 
17:33:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     worksforme 
17:33:25  <jason_at_intel>       +1 
17:33:36  <sgk>  yeah, throw it my way, 2.x p3 sounds good 
17:33:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:33:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2521 
17:34:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     no comments; defer again? 
17:34:19  <garyo>        skip again til bdbaddog is here 
17:34:41  <garyo>        2575 
17:35:06  <jason_at_intel>       I showed Steven the code i had 
17:35:20  <jason_at_intel>       I think i have an AR to write up something 
17:35:27  <jason_at_intel>       for discussion 
17:35:44  <garyo>        Sounds good -- we did decide on an API, right? 
17:36:25  <garyo>        Seemed clever to me at the time I remember. 
17:36:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     tuple(archive-name,real-name) as I recall. 
17:36:41  <garyo>        yes 
17:37:13  <jason_at_intel>       I was not sure we agreed on that 
17:37:14  <jason_at_intel>       but that was the idea greg pushed 
17:37:37  <garyo>        After he showed me how it solved all my cases I was convinced. 
17:37:48  <garyo>        ... but that's just me. 
17:37:47  <jason_at_intel>       not sure how that would work with the current builders sources 
17:38:03  <garyo>        It can't be a regular builder. 
17:38:28  <garyo>        (e.g. arg2nodes wouldn't work on those tuples) 
17:38:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I see that as a distinction without a difference ...but that's just me {;-} 
17:38:48  <garyo>        Steven: what do you think? 
17:39:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     garyo, actually, I think it does...  arg2nodes just ignores them 
17:39:28  <garyo>        hmm, cool 
17:39:03  <jason_at_intel>       Well i guess we want the zip like builder to be callable more than once 
17:39:29  <sgk>  i'm honestly not sure, tuples sound attractive from a flexibility standpoint 
17:39:41  <sgk>  but i haven't looked at this in any detail 
17:40:04  <jason_at_intel>       I ok with the idea 
17:40:17  <jason_at_intel>       I would then want to apply it to the copy builders 
17:40:41  <jason_at_intel>        ie copy(Dir,[(as this,from this)] 
17:40:29  <garyo>        Good idea 
17:40:48  <garyo>        yup 
17:41:02  <sgk>  is the simple case still simple when using tuples? 
17:41:15  <sgk>  i.e. it doesn't require something like specifying all of the files individually 
17:41:19  <garyo>        Tuples are optional.  Regular node list still works. 
17:41:30  <garyo>        And dirs work either as nodes or in tuples. 
17:41:49  <garyo>        i.e. Zip(zipfile, [(todir, fromdir)] 
17:41:45  <jason_at_intel>       do we have a prototype builder doing this? 
17:41:59  <jason_at_intel>       I though Greg said he had sometime 
17:42:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm being called away; have to leave in a couple of minutes 
17:42:13  <jason_at_intel>       I would like to see it myself, to use it as a template 
17:42:23  <garyo>        Greg said he had something working? 
17:42:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yes, I have code 
17:42:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     How should I make it available? 
17:42:39  <jason_at_intel>       can you share :-) 
17:43:20  <jason_at_intel>       This might be a nice way to solve my pattern issue in Parts ( or add tree structure ability in Glob) 
17:43:20  <garyo>        just email it? 
17:43:31  <garyo>        or wiki page? 
17:43:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works; got to go 
17:43:40  <garyo>        ok, c u later 
17:43:45  <jason_at_intel>       latter greg! 
17:43:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll leave my session open and read the rest later.  Bye, all. 
17:43:58  <garyo>        ok, I think we're mostly done though 
17:44:09  <sgk>  later 
17:44:28  <jason_at_intel>       cool.. so defer 2575 till Gregs sample can be reviewed? 
17:44:41  <sgk>  yeah, we really don't have any more in the spreadsheet 
17:44:53  <garyo>        Jason: I agree w/ that. 
17:45:07  <garyo>        Then we'll turn it into a regular ticket to implement it. 
17:45:24  <sgk>  yeah, that sounds good 
17:45:24  <sgk>  any other issues to discuss? 
17:45:28  <jason_at_intel>       I will apply to some stuff in Parts as well, once i get the feel for it 
17:45:37  <garyo>        I'm going to sign off if there's nothing else. 
17:45:51  <garyo>        bye 4 now 
17:45:54  <jason_at_intel>       not at the moment 
17:45:55  *      garyo (~[garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com](mailto:garyo@209-6-36-50.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com)) has left #SCONS 
17:47:39  <jason_at_intel>       till next time 
17:47:43  <sgk>  later 
17:47:46  *      sgk (~[sgk@67.218.104.161](mailto:sgk@67.218.104.161)) has left #SCONS 
17:47:46  <jason_at_intel>       cool 
17:48:05  *      jason_at_intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.6/20100625231939]) 

Updated