-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 313
IrcLog2010 02 16
William Deegan edited this page Jan 14, 2016
·
2 revisions
16:53:37 * bdbaddog (~[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-20-38.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-20-38.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has joined #scons
16:59:35 * [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away
16:59:43 * Jason_at_Intel (~[chatzilla@12.18.240.224](mailto:chatzilla@12.18.240.224)) has joined #scons
17:03:01 * sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-qeheyykyhlqublpj) has joined #scons
17:03:10 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Hey, Steven...
17:03:16 <sgk> hey
17:03:20 <Jason_at_Intel> hello steve
17:03:25 <bdbaddog> Greetings!
17:04:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I see bdbaddog, Jason_at_Intel, techtonik, and loonycyborg here; are you all here for the bug party?
17:04:21 <Jason_at_Intel> yep
17:04:27 <bdbaddog> Unless theres some other party going on.. ;)
17:05:05 * loonycyborg loves celebrating bugs :P
17:05:55 * sgk still hasn't recovered from the weekend
17:06:15 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Gary's on a tiny island in the Carribean (which I can't spell), so I doubt he's gonna show. Shall we start?
17:06:22 <sgk> let's do it
17:06:40 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 1910, sgk wanted to talk about it
17:06:59 <sgk> yeah, i updated with a patch and explanation of the (minor) dilemma
17:07:13 <sgk> there's this functionality i had totally forgotten about
17:07:26 <sgk> where if you set a BUILDERS entry to a function (or other callable)
17:07:35 <sgk> it's okay as long as calling that function *returns* a builder
17:07:54 <sgk> this makes it kind of like what we currently advise people do with [AddMethod](AddMethod)()
17:08:17 <sgk> except that [AddMethod](AddMethod)() is generic, so to make something added via [AddMethod](AddMethod)() look like a real Builder
17:08:25 <sgk> you have to do your own argument interpretation, etc.
17:09:05 <sgk> adding a callable wrapper to a BUILDERS entry makes it look more like a real Builder automatically
17:09:45 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> What do you want to do with it?
17:09:54 <sgk> i wanted to discuss because supporting this features means the 1910 OP doesn't get his problem solved
17:10:10 <sgk> because he was setting BUILDERS to a function that didn't return a Builder
17:10:14 <sgk> which is a condition we can't quite catch
17:10:44 <sgk> i think the best we can do is document that you can add callables to BUILDERS
17:11:21 <sgk> and add the patch so if you add a non-Builder, non-callable to BUILDERS there's at least a coherent error message
17:11:26 <sgk> sound good?
17:11:37 <Jason_at_Intel> this is 1910?
17:11:41 <sgk> yes
17:11:42 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> That sounds good to me
17:11:45 <Jason_at_Intel> I thought this was about scanners?
17:11:58 <sgk> erk...
17:12:00 <sgk> you're right
17:12:04 <sgk> next one in the spreadsheet, 780
17:12:05 <sgk> sorry
17:12:16 <Jason_at_Intel> ahh
17:12:21 <Jason_at_Intel> so 780
17:12:31 <sgk> 1910 i don't think needs discussion
17:12:51 <sgk> unless someone's eager to pick up my partial fix and track down the last failing test case
17:13:21 <Jason_at_Intel> mean is you add a builder directly to the env['BUILDERS'] that is a function .. and not a builder we have an issue
17:13:01 <bdbaddog> can you detect that the builder didn't return a builder?
17:13:31 <bdbaddog> I mean that the callable didn't return a builder on it's first call?
17:13:58 <sgk> bdbaddog: you're right, we could do that; i didn't think of that
17:14:25 <sgk> I was too focused on making it happen at SConscript read time
17:14:32 <bdbaddog> every now and then a synapse fires..
17:14:38 <bdbaddog> :)
17:14:46 <sgk> ...or misfires... :-)
17:15:25 <bdbaddog> either way..
17:15:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I think that sounds reasonable. Do you want to keep it and update the info, or should I try to make sense of it?
17:16:02 <sgk> okay, unless anyone objects, i'll take back the issue and try to finish that part of it
17:16:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:16:15 <Jason_at_Intel> sounds good
17:16:26 <bdbaddog> +1
17:16:30 <sgk> onward...
17:16:30 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2549?
17:16:39 <sgk> looks like consensus, wait for OP
17:16:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, bypass until next time
17:16:51 <Jason_at_Intel> so what about 1910?
17:17:22 <sgk> 1910: i uploaded a fix that's about 95% complete, but induces one regression
17:17:30 <sgk> it's reassigned to garyo 2.x p4
17:17:43 <sgk> he or anyone else can pick up and try to finish it
17:17:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2552, consensus
17:18:05 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2558, ditto
17:18:34 <sgk> 2558: i can go w/P3 so the OP gets some activity hopefully sooner than a P4
17:18:56 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'm good with that
17:19:00 <bdbaddog> +1
17:19:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:19:17 <sgk> 2562: consensus
17:19:20 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2562, needs an owner
17:19:34 <bdbaddog> I'll take it
17:19:43 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:19:55 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2565
17:20:34 <bdbaddog> sounds like a doc only to me.
17:20:47 <sgk> 2565 feels like either a research thing, or else outright invalid
17:21:16 <sgk> research with an eye towards clarifying / expanding the doc
17:21:52 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> After reading sgk's spreadsheet comments, I think fixing the doc so that fooCOMSTR and SHfooCOMSTR refer to each other is the right solution.
17:22:30 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> It would have prevented the issue in the ML and then here.
17:20:40 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> so 2565 is a small bit of editing, but needs someone who can take the time.
17:23:01 <Jason_at_Intel> +1
17:22:38 <bdbaddog> o.k. do we need to put sometihng in 1.3 docs indicating this will be changing in 2.0 ?
17:23:12 <bdbaddog> so env['SHCXXCOMSTR']='$CXXCOMSTR -shared_flag' ?
17:23:22 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> It's not changing; that's the point.
17:23:49 <bdbaddog> oh.. o.k. I c read ur message wrong.
17:23:52 <Jason_at_Intel> I not sure.. but this might be a good idea to also see about adding a make_unique call when subst on some value
17:24:13 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Not in this issue, KISS
17:24:21 <bdbaddog> +1 doc only
17:24:30 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> agree
17:24:40 <Jason_at_Intel> I know we have been getting long CLI lines ... when fixing this up this might be worth thinking about
17:25:13 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Not in this issue, open another issue if you want to think about it
17:25:24 <Jason_at_Intel> sure
17:26:03 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> So, consensus for doc, but who and when?
17:27:15 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> It's a small bit of editing. I'd take it, but my time is going to be so chopped up over the next couple of months, I'd hate to promise anything.
17:28:34 <sgk> 2565: i'll take it
17:28:38 <sgk> 2.x p3?
17:28:53 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Sooner? 2.1 p3?
17:29:00 <sgk> okay, 2.1 p3
17:29:08 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:29:19 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2566
17:29:28 <sgk> 2566: consensus garyo more info from OP
17:29:37 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> yep
17:29:49 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2568
17:30:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Bill and Gary say 2.1 (in the wrong column)...
17:30:34 <sgk> it's pretty easy, i was thinking a regex to match an arbitrary number of / or \
17:30:51 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Or :?
17:31:15 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> (separator for MacOS classic)
17:31:21 <sgk> heh
17:31:44 <sgk> just what we need, drop support for Python 1.5.2 while we add support for Mac OS 9
17:31:55 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> {;-}
17:32:11 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I was just making the point that there could be other separators
17:32:28 <Jason_at_Intel> vms
17:31:25 <bdbaddog> os.pathsep ?
17:31:31 <bdbaddog> or os.dirsep?
17:31:42 <bdbaddog> I think python will give you the native character.
17:32:10 <sgk> right now it matches os.pathsep and explicit '/'
17:32:34 <sgk> sorry, os.sep, not os.pathsep
17:33:21 <sgk> give it to me, i'll knock it out quickly just to get it off the list
17:33:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> OK, when?
17:33:33 <sgk> 2.1 p4?
17:33:38 <bdbaddog> +1
17:33:41 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:34:11 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2569, agree with Steven's comment
17:35:04 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> If I knew what it was supposed to do, I could hack out a RE in a few minutes
17:35:45 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> If someone writes a spec, I'll code it.
17:34:38 <sgk> 2569: Jason_at_intel, do .rc files behave like this issue implies?
17:34:55 <sgk> he's suggesting change the .rc scanner so it finds included files
17:35:06 <Jason_at_Intel> Have not used them for a while as they are replaced with a new format
17:36:16 <sgk> his RE is fine for matching any line of form
17:36:21 <sgk> KEYWORD KEYWORD "filename"
17:36:29 <sgk> the problem isn't lack of RE expertise
17:37:01 <sgk> it's whether or not .rc files can have lines that match that expansive RE and which *aren't* actually included files
17:37:04 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 'I want "filename" to be part of the resource'
17:37:37 <bdbaddog> push back to the filer to point us at a URL where the file's speced?
17:38:11 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> RE evaluation is in C; the algorithm looks at each character at most once, so it doesn't matter how complicated it is.
17:38:36 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Cost is O(strlen)
17:39:10 <sgk> [GregNoel](GregNoel): ? what you say is all true, but i don't see the relevance
17:39:21 <bdbaddog> well we ahve a bit of time to decide on this, lets defer it ?
17:39:44 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> bdbaddog, I won't disagree with that.
17:40:20 <bdbaddog> can we punt and goto 2570?
17:40:38 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> 2570 is consensus, and it's the last one
17:40:28 <Jason_at_Intel> the issue is about a new pattern that look for "filename" or <filename>
17:40:52 <sgk> that old pattern matched both < and "
17:40:54 <bdbaddog> I"m not sure it's really a bug yet.
17:40:55 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree that i worry that "" has other meanings.. such as being a string constant
17:41:05 <sgk> his issue is that we have a hard-coded list of keywords in the old RE:
17:41:17 <sgk> ICON|BITMAP|CURSOR|HTML|FONT|MESSAGETABLE|TYPELIB|REGISTRY|D3DFX
17:41:29 <sgk> and he wants to be able to match other custom keywords like XAML
17:41:33 <Jason_at_Intel> and new ones like xaml are not supported
17:41:45 <sgk> so his RE no longer looks for explicit keyword like the old one
17:42:17 <sgk> but matches any keyword in the second argument
17:43:10 <sgk> research, me
17:43:21 <sgk> i can send it to a day-job .rc expert
17:43:34 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> That makes sense. +1
17:43:49 <Jason_at_Intel> +1
17:44:10 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> done
17:44:23 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> That seems to be it for the issues. 1.3?
17:44:42 <sgk> bdbaddog, how's it going? anything you could use help on?
17:44:47 <bdbaddog> I think it's just 2570, checkpoint and then go?
17:45:01 <bdbaddog> I'm trying to figure out if 2570 is really a bug.
17:45:56 <sgk> k
17:45:56 <bdbaddog> if you create an environment with no tool= spec, then later (on windows) say Tool('msvc')(env)
17:46:09 <bdbaddog> will that reset the tool? I don't think so
17:47:04 <bdbaddog> I think he was just getting lucky before because he was asking for the newest version of VC on the machine, when he installed one newer than the one he was asking for his logic broke.
17:47:17 <bdbaddog> Just taking a little time to get an appropriate VM setup.
17:48:34 <bdbaddog> hoping to resolve it in the next few days and get another checkpoint out.
17:49:10 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> (silence)
17:49:28 <sgk> sounds good to me
17:49:55 <sgk> anyone think we should push the checkpoint w/out 2570?
17:50:18 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> I'd prefer not.
17:50:27 <sgk> agreed, just double-checking
17:50:36 <Jason_at_Intel> from what i know the layout shoudl not change with the finial release
17:50:57 <bdbaddog> k.
17:51:13 <Jason_at_Intel> so getting working now will help when 2010 is finally released
17:51:37 <sgk> cool
17:51:45 <sgk> any other 1.3-related topics or questions?
17:51:57 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> Is that all? If so, while Steven and Bill are here, I have a couple of off-topic things.
17:53:16 <Jason_at_Intel> well I am going to take off.. have bugs to fix
17:53:28 <Jason_at_Intel> till next time!
17:53:31 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> cul
17:53:39 <sgk> later, thnx
17:53:50 * Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458])
18:05:38 <bdbaddog> k. I"m off to the gym. starting to train for a triathlon.. :)
18:05:53 <sgk> good luck
18:06:27 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> agreed
18:08:58 <sgk> okay, later
18:08:58 <sgk> thnx
18:09:00 <[GregNoel](GregNoel)> cul, bye
18:09:07 * sgk (~[sgk@67.218.106.179](mailto:sgk@67.218.106.179)) has left #scons
18:09:13 * [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away
18:15:13 * loonycyborg has quit (Quit: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)