IrcLog2008 06 30

William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
18:51:57  *      stevenknight (n=[]( has joined #scons 
19:00:21  <stevenknight> hello, anyone else here for bugs? 
19:01:28  *      garyo-home (n=[]( has joined #scons 
19:02:19  <garyo-home>   Hi, folks.  Thought I'd log in & do some of my bug homework, but now I see it's tonight! 
19:02:42  <stevenknight> hi gary 
19:02:45  <stevenknight> just you and me so far 
19:02:55  <stevenknight> no thanks to my confusion about days...  :-/ 
19:02:56  <garyo-home>   OK; let me get my windows set up. 
19:03:15  <garyo-home>   yah, I thought it was going to be tomorrow, oh well, in some ways this is better. 
19:03:34  <stevenknight> hopefully greg will have seen the reply and show up as well 
19:03:50  <stevenknight> if not we need to decide if we go ahead just us two or not 
19:03:54  <garyo-home>   yes, his msg was only 1.5 hrs ago 
19:04:14  <garyo-home>   I think two is not a quorum, though we could do some obvious ones anyway... 
19:04:29  <stevenknight> true, just clear out the obvious consensus 
19:04:32  <stevenknight> that's still valuable 
19:05:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, I'm here, but not set up yet; give me a minute 
19:05:09  <garyo-home>   Hi, Greg! 
19:05:41  <stevenknight> np, take your time 
19:09:14  <garyo-home>   Sounds like the scons dinners have been fun. 
19:09:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'm up 
19:09:38  <garyo-home>   OK, shall we dive into the current issues then? 
19:09:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm ready 
19:10:00  <stevenknight> okay, 2098:  consensus 
19:10:06  <garyo-home>   2098: who should integrate?  Steven? 
19:10:07  <stevenknight> 1.x p3 
19:10:12  <stevenknight> yes, me 
19:10:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:10:18  <stevenknight> 2114: 
19:10:37  <stevenknight> 1.0x p2 david 
19:10:46  <garyo-home>   sounds right. 
19:10:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
19:10:53  <stevenknight> done 
19:10:59  <stevenknight> 2115: 
19:11:17  <stevenknight> any objections to 1.x p3? 
19:11:28  <garyo-home>   for doing it as its own separate task? 
19:11:42  <stevenknight> say more 
19:11:45  <garyo-home>   i.e. just making sconsign understand that special case 
19:11:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     it's the default; we'll have to triage those again, but it's fine. 
19:12:03  <stevenknight> yes, by default 
19:12:06  <garyo-home>   ok, fine. 
19:12:23  *      garyo-home avoids long sconf discussion 
19:12:25  <stevenknight> all right, 1.x p3 
19:12:48  <stevenknight> ah, right -- i get it 
19:13:00  <stevenknight> yes, not as part of the whole big SConf brouhaha on the MLs right now 
19:12:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sigh, things get out of control when one is gone; there's a silverfish crawling across my desk... 
19:13:20  <garyo-home>   greg: gross! 
19:13:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     very 
19:13:45  <garyo-home>   ok, on to 2116? 2116: I agree w/ you guys. 
19:13:52  <stevenknight> 2116:  1.0x p2 consensus 
19:13:56  <stevenknight> Benoit 
19:14:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:14:16  <stevenknight> 2117: 
19:14:32  <garyo-home>   I don't think scons should delete anything read-only. 
19:14:36  <stevenknight> i kind of like greg's classification, actually... :-) 
19:14:40  <garyo-home>   :-) 
19:14:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     er, it already does.... 
19:14:52  <stevenknight> yes 
19:14:54  <garyo-home>   greg: yes, you're right. 
19:15:05  <garyo-home>   ... e.g. before building. 
19:15:10  <stevenknight> i don't agree w/his solution (make it writable silently) 
19:15:21  <stevenknight> but would want some configurability / option that permits it 
19:15:23  <garyo-home>   steven: I agree, it's rude & could have bad consequences. 
19:15:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     actually, I was surprised that SCons deletes files before rebuilding them, but that's another discussion 
19:16:03  <garyo-home>   so can we just say wontfix? 
19:16:19  <stevenknight> i'd rather turn it into a feature request for the configurability 
19:16:36  <garyo-home>   OK, 2.x p3 feature req would be OK by me 
19:16:42  <stevenknight> i can go with 2.x 
19:16:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:16:55  <stevenknight> on reflection, it is definitely lower priority than other 1.x stuff 
19:17:00  <stevenknight> 2119: 
19:17:20  <stevenknight> consensus 1.0.x p2 
19:17:30  <garyo-home>   sure. 
19:17:28  <stevenknight> i'm definitely going to fix this soon for my own purposes 
19:17:43  <stevenknight> like, tomorrow 
19:17:58  <stevenknight> (but not check it into branches/core yet) 
19:17:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
19:18:00  <garyo-home>   OK. 
19:18:11  <stevenknight> okay, on to 2006h2? 
19:18:21  <garyo-home>   ok, I'm there. 
19:18:27  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has visitors at the door 
19:18:34  <garyo-home>   1437, consensus 
19:18:49  <stevenknight> yes, 1437 dup 
19:18:52  <stevenknight> done 
19:18:57  *      garyo-home needs a drink, brb 
19:19:27  <stevenknight> 1438: 
19:19:39  <stevenknight> consensus 1.x p3 me 
19:19:46  <stevenknight> i can go w/you guys on the time frame 
19:19:58  *      stevenknight whistles aimlessly while waiting for everyone else to return... 
19:20:06  <garyo-home>   hi, I'm back 
19:20:18  <garyo-home>   1438 1.x p3 is fine w/ me. 
19:20:26  <garyo-home>   There's plenty to do before then. 
19:20:50  <stevenknight> done 
19:21:01  <stevenknight> 1439:  i can go w/invalid 
19:21:23  <bdbaddog>     which spreadsheet are you guys on now? 
19:21:24  <stevenknight> i was thinking research because it *is* kind of a pain to hook up new builders 
19:21:28  <stevenknight> hey bill 
19:21:30  <garyo-home>   1439: and tell him to use src_builder?  I guess after this long he probably doesn't care anymore... 
19:21:30  <stevenknight> 2006h2 
19:21:47  <stevenknight> sure, as a courtesy for closing it out 
19:21:48  <bdbaddog>     Hey. I'll just be here a few, but I'll add what I can. 
19:21:55  <garyo-home>   Hi Bill. 
19:21:57  <stevenknight> bdbaddog:  cool 
19:22:19  <stevenknight> so 1439: invalid, point him to src_builder 
19:22:35  <garyo-home>   re 1439: I'd like a new ticket for making adding src builders easier. 
19:22:38  <stevenknight> i'd still like another issue for some feature (API extension?) to make it easier to hook up your own builders to our existing ones 
19:22:42  <garyo-home>   +1 
19:22:47  <stevenknight> +1 
19:22:58  <bdbaddog>     Like AddToCBuilder? 
19:23:20  *      stevenknight applauds garyo-home's ability to put things much more economically 
19:23:31  <garyo-home>   bdbaddog: Maybe, but let's not design it now, just make a ticket for later. 
19:23:33  <stevenknight> bdbaddog:  something like that 
19:23:54  <stevenknight> i'd genericize it somehow (wave hands mumble mumble) 
19:24:03  <garyo-home>   yes. 
19:24:12  <bdbaddog>     :) yeah. that's probably why it's not done already. 
19:24:43  <garyo-home>   1442, folks? 
19:24:46  <stevenknight> 1442:  sounds like greg's right 
19:25:02  <garyo-home>   In that case, maybe it's already better due to David's stuff? 
19:25:29  <stevenknight> maybe 
19:25:33  <garyo-home>   Anyone have a mingw env? 
19:26:01  <garyo-home>   ok, guess not. 
19:26:08  <stevenknight> not me 
19:26:23  <stevenknight> i really want to set up buildbots with the more common windows configs 
19:26:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1439: concur (I'm back, BTW) 
19:26:30  <stevenknight> one for MinGW, one for Cygwin, etc. 
19:27:36  <bdbaddog>     looks like I have cygwin with mingw-g77 installed. 
19:27:48  <stevenknight> the more i think about it, the more 1442 seems like a really interesting case 
19:27:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     how so? 
19:28:04  <stevenknight> conceptually i agree w/Greg's analysis that .f is clearly an error 
19:28:21  <stevenknight> but if so, how would you specify the weird corner case where you really *did* want to archive .f files? 
19:28:46  <stevenknight> after all, there's no reason why you should be prohibited from doing that 
19:29:00  <stevenknight> just because there's a more common use case of .f files generating .o files 
19:29:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     You need an "ar" builder, not a library builder 
19:29:13  <garyo-home>   ... or .c files for that matter.  Maybe File nodes would do it? 
19:29:33  <stevenknight> hmm, interesting distinction 
19:29:36  <bdbaddog>     doesn mingw builder setup fortran at all? 
19:29:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The archive builders take any file suffix 
19:30:26  <stevenknight> hmm, i think Gary's right -- File nodes circumvent the suffix checking 
19:30:41  <bdbaddog>     nope. mingw sets up the following: 
19:30:41  <bdbaddog>         gnu_tools = ['gcc', 'g++', 'gnulink', 'ar', 'gas', 'm4'] 
19:30:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     you sure? 
19:30:49  <stevenknight> nope 
19:31:18  <stevenknight> but i am worried that the distinction between a "library" (a .a file with objects) and an "archive" (the same suffix but with different contents) would be really subtle and easily lost 
19:32:02  <garyo-home>   It's a pretty atypical case though. 
19:32:05  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Uh, "ar" archives don't have a .a suffix; that's only for libraries. 
19:32:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The suffix is usually .ar or none at all 
19:32:58  <garyo-home>   greg: never seen such a thing myself. 
19:33:01  <stevenknight> yeah, the case is atypical 
19:33:10  <stevenknight> but i think the potential for confusion remains 
19:33:19  <stevenknight> if there is more than one builder that causes "ar" to be invoked 
19:33:48  <bdbaddog>     has anyone run into a build which used ar for things other than static libraries? 
19:33:50  <garyo-home>   They could always use Command() if Library() doesn't do what they want. 
19:33:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Really?  More than one builder causes 'gcc' to be invoked... 
19:34:11  <stevenknight> hmm, fair point.  i'm probably worrying needlessly 
19:34:21  <garyo-home>   I think so :-) 
19:34:25  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     bdbaddog, you're not old enough; the evolution was the other way around 
19:35:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     'ar' was used to build archives; eventually, archives of .o files were acceptable to the linker 
19:35:15  <garyo-home>   So where does that leave 1442? 
19:35:41  <stevenknight> dup 
19:35:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     dup 
19:35:48  <garyo-home>   ok. 
19:35:56  <bdbaddog>     dup of ? 
19:36:04  <bdbaddog>     mingw builder doesn't setup g77... 
19:36:09  <garyo-home>   1437 says the ssheet. 
19:36:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     That's "better error messages when tool not configured" 
19:37:10  <stevenknight> ah, but bill's point is good:  our default doesn't even make this possible 
19:37:17  <bdbaddog>     ahh. o.k. well it's a dup and also it's mingw doesn't setup g77 though. 
19:38:07  <bdbaddog>     o.k. gents. I may have a patch for that. I've gotta head out for a while though. I'll shoot an email later with pach if I get it working. 
19:38:20  <garyo-home>   There's also 1895, g77 and gfortran not detected on windows  which is about mingw. 
19:39:21  <garyo-home>   Seems like 1442 could be a dup of 1895. 
19:39:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (other way around; use the earlier issue as the basis) 
19:40:08  <garyo-home>   greg: you're right. 
19:40:59  <garyo-home>   1895 is research, p3, david.  So mark 1895 as dup of 1442, and make 1442 research, p3, david. 
19:41:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done; 1443? 
19:41:58  <garyo-home>   There is now a SHFORTRANFLAGS, so I presume it could get set to /fPIC if appropriate. 
19:42:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     oops, brb 
19:42:36  <garyo-home>   But it's clearly David's if it's still broken.  1.0.x p3 David? 
19:45:03  <garyo-home>   Can we just give 1449 and 1450 to Jim, 1.x p3, keyword "quoting"? 
19:45:34  <garyo-home>   h'lo? 
19:46:06  *      sgk_ (n=[]( has joined #scons 
19:46:23  <sgk_> hmm, looks like the server i was connected to died 
19:46:29  <garyo-home>   Hi again, didn't even see you drop out. 
19:46:31  <sgk_> what was the last you got from me? 
19:46:41  <garyo-home>   "our default doesn't even make this possible" 
19:47:05  <sgk_> so maybe it's a one liner of 'g77' (or more likely 'gfortran') to the mingw tool list 
19:47:26  <sgk_> anyone object to that solution for...  1.x p3? 
19:47:33  <garyo-home>   Yes, just after you dropped out bdbaddog said: "o.k. gents. I may have a patch for that. I've gotta head out for a while though. I'll shoot an email later with pach if I get it working." 
19:47:53  <garyo-home>   If it's trivial, could be in 1.0.x, right? 
19:48:00  <sgk_> yeah 
19:48:06  <sgk_> 1.0.x p3? 
19:48:09  <garyo-home>   OK. 
19:48:12  <sgk_> done 
19:48:19  <garyo-home>   Can we just give 1449 and 1450 to Jim, 1.x p3, keyword "quoting"? 
19:48:34  <sgk_> +1 
19:48:39  <garyo-home>   sorry, "research" ? 
19:49:02  <garyo-home>   research was the ssheet consensus but I kind of think it's 1.x timeframe stuff. 
19:49:06  <sgk_> sure, research 
19:49:14  <sgk_> research p3 "quoting" 
19:49:20  <sgk_> done 
19:49:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     dkjak 
19:49:23  <garyo-home>   good. 
19:49:30  <sgk_> 1452: 
19:49:46  <sgk_> 1.x p3 me 
19:49:48  <garyo-home>   sounds like that one's yours, Steven. 
19:49:58  <garyo-home>   ok, done. 
19:50:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
19:50:15  <sgk_> 1456:  research, me "[VisualStudio](VisualStudio)" 
19:50:55  <garyo-home>   maybe, but I like "invalid" -- can't just have msvc as the *only* tool. 
19:51:21  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     true, but a better message would help 
19:51:47  <garyo-home>   fine, in that case it's dup of the "better errors" one, not [VisualStudio](VisualStudio). 
19:51:51  <sgk_> oh, hey, even better 
19:52:04  <sgk_> that makes it a toolchain issue and i can give it to you guys...  :-) 
19:52:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     that's why I said dup 1437, better messages 
19:52:20  <sgk_> invalid is good, though 
19:52:31  <sgk_> either one is fine w/me  
19:52:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Let's go with dup 
19:52:53  <garyo-home>   Yes, that gives the OP more info. 
19:53:00  <sgk_> ok, dup 1437 
19:53:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:53:23  <sgk_> 1458:  dup 1437 as well 
19:53:24  <garyo-home>   1458, same. 
19:53:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
19:53:54  <garyo-home>   1459, does Ludwig have a prototype of this already? 
19:53:55  <sgk_> 1459:  Ludwig 
19:54:10  <garyo-home>   +1 
19:54:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     He was looking at it; I think he has an idea 
19:54:44  <garyo-home>   Good. 
19:54:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     His experiments showed very little impact due to the size of buffer 
19:54:54  *      stevenknight has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 
19:55:12  <sgk_> Ludwig, any appropriate target milestone + priority 
19:55:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:55:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1460 
19:56:00  <sgk_> 1460:  i'm agnostic 
19:56:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     interesting choice of word... 
19:56:50  <garyo-home>   I can take it.  Any time; 1.0.x p3? 
19:56:56  <sgk_> works for me 
19:57:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works 
19:57:09  <garyo-home>   ok. 
19:57:22  <sgk_> 1462:  worksforme 
19:57:26  <sgk_> i'm a dual core 
19:57:39  <sgk_> it can be re-opened if it's still a problem elsewhere 
19:57:40  <garyo-home>   Sounds like you tried pretty hard to repro it. 
19:57:48  <garyo-home>   worksforme works for me. 
19:57:50  <sgk_> but my guess is some of Benoit's Taskmaster changes have fixed it 
19:57:53  <sgk_> :-) 
19:58:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     That would be my guess as well 
19:58:26  <garyo-home>   1464: agree, wontfix. 
19:58:33  <sgk_> done 
19:58:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
19:58:58  <sgk_> 1466:  me, research, [VisualStudio](VisualStudio) 
19:59:15  <sgk_> agree w/Greg that it might end up in toolchain, but i'm happy to be stuck with it in the meantime 
19:59:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, worst case you toss it to us. 
19:59:21  <sgk_> yes 
19:59:33  <garyo-home>   ok. 
19:59:40  <sgk_> 1468:  1.0.x p2? 
19:59:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     at least 
20:00:02  <sgk_> sounds pretty serious 
20:00:15  <garyo-home>   People must be working around it. 
20:00:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     working by blind luck is another way of saying pretty serious... 
20:00:33  <sgk_> yeah 
20:00:37  <sgk_> 1.0.x p1? 
20:00:43  <garyo-home>   ok w/ me. 
20:00:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes 
20:00:52  <sgk_> done 
20:01:21  <sgk_> 1469:  d'oh!  wonfix 
20:01:24  <sgk_> wontfix 
20:01:25  <sgk_> greg is right 
20:01:32  <garyo-home>   agreed. 
20:01:36  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
20:01:41  <sgk_> 1471:  closed 
20:01:43  <sgk_> 1476: 
20:01:57  <sgk_> research, me 
20:02:13  <sgk_> (sorry, trying to get through these quick, I have to start winding down) 
20:02:30  <sgk_> 1478:  research, me, [VisualStudio](VisualStudio) 
20:02:34  <garyo-home>   Me too.  OK, 1476 is yours. 
20:02:48  <sgk_> 1478:  gary, fixed? 
20:02:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1476: you're welcome to it 
20:02:53  <sgk_> 1483:  gary, fixed? 
20:03:05  <garyo-home>   1478: hopefully will be overtaken by vsvars.bat stuff 
20:03:31  <sgk_> yes re: 1478 & vsvars.bat 
20:03:51  <sgk_> 1488:  1.x p3 me 
20:04:07  <garyo-home>   1483: yes, I consider that fixed. 
20:04:44  <sgk_> cool 
20:04:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Now would be a good time for me to quit; our guests are watching the football game... 
20:05:01  <garyo-home>   I should go too.  Next week? 
20:05:03  <sgk_> and i have a dog that needs walking and won't wait 
20:05:09  <sgk_> same time? 
20:05:13  <garyo-home>   OK for me. 
20:05:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
20:05:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     later, all... 
20:05:24  <garyo-home>   good, bye for now! 
20:05:28  <sgk_> done (and i'll remember Monday night this time...) 
20:05:29  <sgk_> later.. 
20:05:36  *      sgk_ has quit ("Leaving") 
20:05:45  *      garyo-home has quit ("[ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906]") 

Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.