Clone wiki

SCons / BugParty / IrcLog2010-10-26

16:57:18 * bdbaddog ( has joined #SCONS 17:00:43 <sgk> hey guys 17:01:00 <bdbaddog> Greetings. 17:01:06 * Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@ has joined #SCONS 17:01:53 <GregNoel> Hi, I can't stay the entire time, so if we're going to get started, we should do it soon. 17:02:04 <Jason_at_Intel> hello 17:02:16 <sgk> let's go, gary indicated he has a conflict 17:02:22 <GregNoel> 2689 clear preference for 2.1 p2, but who can do it? 17:03:07 <sgk> sigh... probably belongs in my camp, i probably know that code best 17:03:17 <GregNoel> done 17:03:26 <GregNoel> 2690 Consensus on "asap" but that needs to be defined (also "who"). 17:03:49 <sgk> gary suggested using callable(), give it to him? 17:03:59 <GregNoel> works for me 17:04:16 <Jason_at_Intel> agree 17:04:24 <GregNoel> done 17:04:27 <GregNoel> 2691 Done by Gary (thanks!) 17:04:27 <GregNoel> 2692 Technically invalid. Also technically a dup of 2536. I agree with Steven that a separate InstallDir() is not the way to go. So, is this sufficiently urgent that we should do it independently of 2536? I'm inclined to treat it as a dup. 17:05:06 <sgk> i'd go with dup, unless someone feels strongly enough to take it on sooner 17:05:13 <Jason_at_Intel> I think this shows a need to handle structure in the node lists 17:05:42 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: that sounds right 17:05:58 <GregNoel> This has nothing to do with node lists; it's about structuring a destination directory. 17:06:29 <GregNoel> Yes, zip files should be structured in the same way, but that's not the point here. 17:06:34 <Jason_at_Intel> ya... like Zipfile... remember you idea with tuples 17:07:12 <sgk> anyway, it's big enough that i doubt anyone's going to pull a rabbit out of their hat for it soon 17:07:19 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree a new function is the wrong way to go.. I am only saying that a fundamental fix is needed in SCons.. once that is done a large set of issues go away 17:07:23 <sgk> so dup 2536 should be fine 17:07:31 <GregNoel> OK, dup it is; done 17:07:35 <GregNoel> 2693 I'm willing for it to be 2.x p3, so there's consensus there, but who should do it? And should it be activated by catching the exception if the unlink() fails? 17:08:19 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: since you already dealt with the os.stat() issue in Parts, could you take this one? 17:08:24 <Jason_at_Intel> I have a fix in Parts with an unlink override that will do this 17:08:37 <GregNoel> done 17:08:49 <sgk> if you want to implement it in a way that melds nicely with Parts, that'd be cool 17:08:58 <Jason_at_Intel> I guess... can we get that patch ( maybe tweaked in this case) that i put i dev list in SCons? 17:09:33 <sgk> which one? i don't see why not 17:09:50 <Jason_at_Intel> it would this one... getting link 17:10:36 <Jason_at_Intel> 17:11:02 <Jason_at_Intel> this will allow the base of what is needed to get hard links and symlinks working in SCons for windows 17:11:53 <sgk> okay, but that's orthogonal to 2693, yes? 17:11:54 <Jason_at_Intel> we can add the tweaked CCopy builder as well if you like :-) ( as my copy has the reporting API in Parts for --verbose ability) 17:12:09 <sgk> so let's get through the bug list first before discussing those details 17:12:38 <Jason_at_Intel> only in that i would then add the unlink overide to retarget readonly files as well 17:12:16 <GregNoel> 2694 (First thing I'd look for is spelling errors.) 17:13:10 <Jason_at_Intel> Greg I would agree 17:13:55 <Jason_at_Intel> They might be an issue with MSVS_VERSION 17:14:03 <sgk> 2694: spelling errors in what? he posted his SConstruct, and MSV[CS]_VERSION are spelled correctly, at least... 17:14:45 <GregNoel> sgk, I'll take your word for it. 17:14:51 <sgk> yeah, he posted it 17:14:41 <Jason_at_Intel> there should be a simple test case that can verify this. 17:15:38 <sgk> bdbaddog, do you have cycles to investigate? if not, how about if we ask gary to follow up, since he already replied once 17:15:41 <Jason_at_Intel> BDog? 17:16:20 <bdbaddog> hmm. I can take a first pass at it. 17:16:40 <bdbaddog> just checking that MSVSProject is reading/doing anything with those variables.. 17:16:44 <GregNoel> research? If so, then what priority? 17:16:47 <bdbaddog> it could be broken from the refactoring. 17:16:54 <sgk> p3? 17:17:11 <bdbaddog> p3 17:17:14 <GregNoel> works for me 17:17:19 <sgk> cool, thanks 17:17:17 <GregNoel> 2695 17:18:50 <GregNoel> I'm almost positive Action() does the right thing (there are tests for it); what did you mean here? 17:18:53 <sgk> 2695: looking to see if my diagnosis looks in the ballpark 17:19:48 <sgk> yeah, looks right 17:20:16 <sgk> GregNoel: you're right, Actions know how to rebuild in response to changes to variables, but only if they know what variables are used 17:20:30 <sgk> command-line strings track the changes for free because we expand them 17:20:39 <sgk> but Python function actions don't get expanded that way 17:20:57 <sgk> so they have to be told what construction variables the Python function will look at when building its target 17:20:57 <GregNoel> Ah, you mean MSVSProject() doesn't provide the variables? 17:21:00 <sgk> yeah 17:21:37 <GregNoel> So yes, easy fix: just provide the variables. Who does it? 17:21:35 <sgk> so give it to me, should be pretty trivial 17:21:43 <GregNoel> done 17:22:01 <GregNoel> 2696 Er, it's not O(1), but I agree with Gary that the size should be included. 17:22:53 <Jason_at_Intel> I think it would be nice if we could reuse existing logic 17:23:21 <sgk> the question is how? 17:23:42 <sgk> we have this Unlink() action that really should only be called if necessary 17:23:48 <sgk> instead of every time 17:23:55 <Jason_at_Intel> and i think the link unlink can be used for more than it is going forward with the fixes i have for win32 17:25:40 <Jason_at_Intel> so it might be good to factor the checking "decider" logic in a different way in the node objects 17:25:44 <sgk> the architectural issue (iirc) is that the duplicate logic is kind of handled as a side effect of examining source files 17:26:22 <sgk> not as a direct action in the DAG walk, which is probably where it should really happen 17:26:36 <sgk> so the goal of re-using it is good, but would take a lot more work 17:27:06 <sgk> and i'd hate to not give people a good optimization in the meantime 17:27:18 <Jason_at_Intel> well that seems simple then 17:27:29 <sgk> we should still be able to refactor it in the future along the lines you're suggesting 17:27:32 <Jason_at_Intel> take the fix.. and note that this needs to be cleaned up 17:27:45 <sgk> yeah 17:27:58 <sgk> oh, i'll open up a separate issue to track that clean up 17:28:01 <GregNoel> decision? 17:28:12 <sgk> so... 2.1 p3 sgk? 17:28:30 <Jason_at_Intel> +1 17:28:32 <GregNoel> hmmm... Yeah, that seems OK. 17:28:34 <GregNoel> done 17:28:53 <GregNoel> 2697 17:29:05 <sgk> bdbaddog or Jason_at_Intel, can either of you volunteer? 17:29:41 <Jason_at_Intel> I have code, and stuff to share to help... 17:30:06 <Jason_at_Intel> however the current msvc tools is beyond me.. as i already have a working version in Parts 17:30:37 <sgk> can you update the issue with specifics about the registry difference? 17:30:47 <Jason_at_Intel> Be happy to 17:31:00 <bdbaddog> I was looking at vc9 vs vc9 express (and for 10) wasn't sure how to detect the diff. 17:31:41 <sgk> bdbaddog: if Jason_at_Intel provides that info, would it be pretty straightforward to fix? 17:32:34 <Jason_at_Intel> r'Software[Wow6432Node](Wow6432Node)\Microsoft[VisualStudio](VisualStudio)\9.0\Setup\VC[ProductDir](ProductDir)', 17:32:36 <Jason_at_Intel> r'Software\Microsoft[VisualStudio](VisualStudio)\9.0\Setup\VC[ProductDir](ProductDir)', 17:32:38 <Jason_at_Intel> r'Software[Wow6432Node](Wow6432Node)\Microsoft\VCExpress\9.0\Setup\VC[ProductDir](ProductDir)', 17:32:39 <Jason_at_Intel> r'Software\Microsoft\VCExpress\9.0\Setup\VC[ProductDir](ProductDir)' 17:32:42 <bdbaddog> I'm not sure there's a fix for this, looks invalid.? 17:32:50 <Jason_at_Intel> first two are pro... second two are express 17:33:01 <bdbaddog> Jason please post to bug or email to dev list 17:33:12 <Jason_at_Intel> doing it as we type 17:33:14 <bdbaddog> if they request an invalid TARGET_ARCH.. 17:33:39 <Jason_at_Intel> well there is another case in this... 17:33:51 <Jason_at_Intel> there is the 2008 server sdk 17:33:57 <bdbaddog> anyway .. yes I'll take a look. 17:34:02 <Jason_at_Intel> this has teh 32-bit -64-bit and ia64 compilers 17:34:07 <Jason_at_Intel> all looks the same 17:34:12 <sgk> bdbaddog: oh, the issue being that the default is to build for the current host arch (64 bits) but he has no 64-bit compiler installed? 17:34:14 <bdbaddog> we handle sdk separately. 17:34:34 <bdbaddog> well sort of, if I remember we have a list of SDK's which are valid with diff VC/VS's. 17:34:59 <GregNoel> decision? research? If so, then what priority? 17:35:15 <sgk> if that's the case, you're right, that does sound invalid 17:35:26 <bdbaddog> research 2.1 p3 17:35:28 <bdbaddog> me 17:35:41 <GregNoel> done 17:35:45 <sgk> seems like he has an obvious workaround, set TARGET_ARCH to 32 bit, so yeah, 2.1 p3 seems eminently fair 17:35:52 <bdbaddog> I did finally get a win 7 64 bit machine to play on. so that'll help 17:35:52 <sgk> I'd be okay with even lower 17:36:02 <GregNoel> 2698 No spreadsheet quorum, so we should bypass this issue if there's no immediate agreement. (If I have time while I'm writing up the meeting results, I may propose a patch.) 17:36:24 <sgk> 2698: sounds good 17:36:35 <GregNoel> so, bypass? 17:36:47 <sgk> yes 17:36:50 <bdbaddog> +`1 17:36:51 <GregNoel> done 17:37:02 <GregNoel> 2699 Again, no spreadsheet quorum. That said, I think I prefer dup 2536. 17:37:19 <sgk> i'll go with dup 2536 17:37:31 <Jason_at_Intel> +1 17:37:40 <sgk> especially since there's a reference back when the dup occurs, it's not like we lose any additional info 17:37:45 <GregNoel> done 17:37:49 <GregNoel> Of the issues up for review, only 1406 could be considered to have a quorum, and that's only if you include Dirk's email. I propose we assign 1406 to Dirk, make Steven either CC or QA, and turn him loose. 17:38:33 <sgk> +1, that sounds good 17:38:58 <GregNoel> sgk, do you want CC or QA? 17:39:19 <sgk> uh.... both? QA, if both are superfluous 17:39:33 <sgk> (both is superfluous?) 17:39:52 <GregNoel> both can't hurt; the notification email isn't duplicated. 17:39:58 <sgk> both, then 17:40:03 <GregNoel> done 17:40:10 <GregNoel> OK, we're done. 17:40:23 <GregNoel> And I've got to go, good timing. 17:40:28 <sgk> ok, thnx everyone 17:40:37 <bdbaddog> np.. l8r 17:40:50 <GregNoel> bye, all... 17:41:12 <sgk> GregNoel, bdbaddog: 'night 17:40:51 <sgk> Jason_at_Intel: any more stuff to go over? I owe you emails from weeks ago 17:41:14 <Jason_at_Intel> sure 17:41:23 <Jason_at_Intel> the file handling stuff 17:42:04 <Jason_at_Intel> I think what i have in Parts for override the file open call ( and unlink .. minus maybe the readonly file issue) is ready to go 17:42:40 <Jason_at_Intel> I have it re factored in truck as a separate file 17:42:54 <Jason_at_Intel> to make it easy to add to SCons 17:43:24 <Jason_at_Intel> there is a little quirk in that I whack the current SCons win32 file overrides 17:43:33 <Jason_at_Intel> but other than that I think this code is done 17:44:12 <Jason_at_Intel> I am sure there is other stuff.. but i can remember the e-mails at this time ( long day...) 17:44:18 <sgk> well, if your overrides work better, that should be fine 17:44:49 <sgk> i hear you re: long day, real life's been impossible lately 17:45:24 <sgk> there's nothing in your windows symlink support that'll blow up on earlier Windows or Python versions, is there? 17:46:48 <Jason_at_Intel> only if you don't have ctypes 17:47:10 <Jason_at_Intel> I have fixes in my CCopy builder to deal with an issue with hardlinks already existing 17:47:37 <Jason_at_Intel> might be a better way minus the delete call to deal with it... but it works well enough 17:47:54 <sgk> okay, so send me a patch and I'll take a look 17:48:00 <Jason_at_Intel> however that code.. or any code like this needs this override to allow correct file creation so links of some form can be used 17:48:04 <sgk> and I'll also dig up the email stuff I was supposed to send 17:48:21 <Jason_at_Intel> so.. that is the question.. I have a file 17:48:25 <Jason_at_Intel> not a patch 17:49:08 <Jason_at_Intel> 17:50:02 <Jason_at_Intel> sort of unclear how to do this "patch" in Scons as it is new code, and might need a certain location 17:51:20 <Jason_at_Intel> so i guess look it over.. I will send links again tomorrow in e-mail 17:51:49 <Jason_at_Intel> we can discuss where it should go in SCons 17:53:06 <Jason_at_Intel> Does that sound OK? 17:55:04 <Jason_at_Intel> ?? 17:55:21 <sgk> sure, sounds good 17:55:29 <sgk> (sorry, got interrupted -- still at work) 17:55:36 <Jason_at_Intel> great 17:55:51 <Jason_at_Intel> oh I recall one item 17:55:56 <Jason_at_Intel> the scons.bat issue 17:56:06 <Jason_at_Intel> you can use on windows 17:56:15 <Jason_at_Intel> it works better in general 17:56:36 <Jason_at_Intel> but we can do that in e-mail 17:56:47 <sgk> except for passing command line arguments, there's some gotcha with that 17:57:07 <Jason_at_Intel> I have to get going here it is about 8pm.. need to help with the twins... 17:57:08 <sgk> at least for some combination of Python version + Windows version 17:57:09 <Jason_at_Intel> oh?? 17:57:19 <Jason_at_Intel> I have not seen this 17:57:34 <sgk> yeah, i remember having some links describing it, i'll dig them up 17:57:49 <Jason_at_Intel> ok.. will be good to review 17:58:01 <sgk> yeah 17:58:09 <sgk> okay, good night, good luck with the twins 17:58:29 <Jason_at_Intel> thank.. 17:58:37 <Jason_at_Intel> good night! 17:58:44 * Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]) 18:00:07 * bdbaddog ( has left #SCONS 18:00:13 * sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-mbowtfhelsfesqin) has left #SCONS