Please note:The SCons wiki is in read-only mode due to ongoing spam/DoS issues. Also, new account creation is currently disabled. We are looking into alternative wiki hosts.
   1 18:51:57 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@c-69-181-234-155.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
   2 19:00:21 <stevenknight>	hello, anyone else here for bugs?
   3 19:01:28 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   4 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!
   5 19:02:42 <stevenknight>	hi gary
   6 19:02:45 <stevenknight>	just you and me so far
   7 19:02:55 <stevenknight>	no thanks to my confusion about days...  :-/
   8 19:02:56 <garyo-home>	OK; let me get my windows set up.
   9 19:03:15 <garyo-home>	yah, I thought it was going to be tomorrow, oh well, in some ways this is better.
  10 19:03:34 <stevenknight>	hopefully greg will have seen the reply and show up as well
  11 19:03:50 <stevenknight>	if not we need to decide if we go ahead just us two or not
  12 19:03:54 <garyo-home>	yes, his msg was only 1.5 hrs ago
  13 19:04:14 <garyo-home>	I think two is not a quorum, though we could do some obvious ones anyway...
  14 19:04:29 <stevenknight>	true, just clear out the obvious consensus
  15 19:04:32 <stevenknight>	that's still valuable
  16 19:05:04 <GregNoel>	Hi, I'm here, but not set up yet; give me a minute
  17 19:05:09 <garyo-home>	Hi, Greg!
  18 19:05:41 <stevenknight>	np, take your time
  19 19:09:14 <garyo-home>	Sounds like the scons dinners have been fun.
  20 19:09:18 <GregNoel>	OK, I'm up
  21 19:09:38 <garyo-home>	OK, shall we dive into the current issues then?
  22 19:09:47 <GregNoel>	I'm ready
  23 19:10:00 <stevenknight>	okay, 2098:  consensus
  24 19:10:06 <garyo-home>	2098: who should integrate?  Steven?
  25 19:10:07 <stevenknight>	1.x p3
  26 19:10:12 <stevenknight>	yes, me
  27 19:10:14 <GregNoel>	done
  28 19:10:18 <stevenknight>	2114:
  29 19:10:37 <stevenknight>	1.0x p2 david
  30 19:10:46 <garyo-home>	sounds right.
  31 19:10:52 <GregNoel>	works for me
  32 19:10:53 <stevenknight>	done
  33 19:10:59 <stevenknight>	2115:
  34 19:11:17 <stevenknight>	any objections to 1.x p3?
  35 19:11:28 <garyo-home>	for doing it as its own separate task?
  36 19:11:42 <stevenknight>	say more
  37 19:11:45 <garyo-home>	i.e. just making sconsign understand that special case
  38 19:11:48 <GregNoel>	it's the default; we'll have to triage those again, but it's fine.
  39 19:12:03 <stevenknight>	yes, by default
  40 19:12:06 <garyo-home>	ok, fine.
  41 19:12:23 *	garyo-home avoids long sconf discussion
  42 19:12:25 <stevenknight>	all right, 1.x p3
  43 19:12:48 <stevenknight>	ah, right -- i get it
  44 19:13:00 <stevenknight>	yes, not as part of the whole big SConf brouhaha on the MLs right now
  45 19:12:58 <GregNoel>	sigh, things get out of control when one is gone; there's a silverfish crawling across my desk...
  46 19:13:20 <garyo-home>	greg: gross!
  47 19:13:30 <GregNoel>	very
  48 19:13:45 <garyo-home>	ok, on to 2116? 2116: I agree w/ you guys.
  49 19:13:52 <stevenknight>	2116:  1.0x p2 consensus
  50 19:13:56 <stevenknight>	Benoit
  51 19:14:01 <GregNoel>	done
  52 19:14:16 <stevenknight>	2117:
  53 19:14:32 <garyo-home>	I don't think scons should delete anything read-only.
  54 19:14:36 <stevenknight>	i kind of like greg's classification, actually... :-)
  55 19:14:40 <garyo-home>	:-)
  56 19:14:45 <GregNoel>	er, it already does....
  57 19:14:52 <stevenknight>	yes
  58 19:14:54 <garyo-home>	greg: yes, you're right.
  59 19:15:05 <garyo-home>	... e.g. before building.
  60 19:15:10 <stevenknight>	i don't agree w/his solution (make it writable silently)
  61 19:15:21 <stevenknight>	but would want some configurability / option that permits it
  62 19:15:23 <garyo-home>	steven: I agree, it's rude & could have bad consequences.
  63 19:15:33 <GregNoel>	actually, I was surprised that SCons deletes files before rebuilding them, but that's another discussion
  64 19:16:03 <garyo-home>	so can we just say wontfix?
  65 19:16:19 <stevenknight>	i'd rather turn it into a feature request for the configurability
  66 19:16:36 <garyo-home>	OK, 2.x p3 feature req would be OK by me
  67 19:16:42 <stevenknight>	i can go with 2.x
  68 19:16:48 <GregNoel>	done
  69 19:16:55 <stevenknight>	on reflection, it is definitely lower priority than other 1.x stuff
  70 19:17:00 <stevenknight>	2119:
  71 19:17:20 <stevenknight>	consensus 1.0.x p2
  72 19:17:30 <garyo-home>	sure.
  73 19:17:28 <stevenknight>	i'm definitely going to fix this soon for my own purposes
  74 19:17:43 <stevenknight>	like, tomorrow
  75 19:17:58 <stevenknight>	(but not check it into branches/core yet)
  76 19:17:58 <GregNoel>	works for me
  77 19:18:00 <garyo-home>	OK.
  78 19:18:11 <stevenknight>	okay, on to 2006h2?
  79 19:18:21 <garyo-home>	ok, I'm there.
  80 19:18:27 *	GregNoel has visitors at the door
  81 19:18:34 <garyo-home>	1437, consensus
  82 19:18:49 <stevenknight>	yes, 1437 dup
  83 19:18:52 <stevenknight>	done
  84 19:18:57 *	garyo-home needs a drink, brb
  85 19:19:27 <stevenknight>	1438:
  86 19:19:39 <stevenknight>	consensus 1.x p3 me
  87 19:19:46 <stevenknight>	i can go w/you guys on the time frame
  88 19:19:58 *	stevenknight whistles aimlessly while waiting for everyone else to return...
  89 19:20:06 <garyo-home>	hi, I'm back
  90 19:20:18 <garyo-home>	1438 1.x p3 is fine w/ me.
  91 19:20:26 <garyo-home>	There's plenty to do before then.
  92 19:20:50 <stevenknight>	done
  93 19:21:01 <stevenknight>	1439:  i can go w/invalid
  94 19:21:23 <bdbaddog>	which spreadsheet are you guys on now?
  95 19:21:24 <stevenknight>	i was thinking research because it *is* kind of a pain to hook up new builders
  96 19:21:28 <stevenknight>	hey bill
  97 19:21:30 <garyo-home>	1439: and tell him to use src_builder?  I guess after this long he probably doesn't care anymore...
  98 19:21:30 <stevenknight>	2006h2
  99 19:21:47 <stevenknight>	sure, as a courtesy for closing it out
 100 19:21:48 <bdbaddog>	Hey. I'll just be here a few, but I'll add what I can.
 101 19:21:55 <garyo-home>	Hi Bill.
 102 19:21:57 <stevenknight>	bdbaddog:  cool
 103 19:22:19 <stevenknight>	so 1439: invalid, point him to src_builder
 104 19:22:35 <garyo-home>	re 1439: I'd like a new ticket for making adding src builders easier.
 105 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
 106 19:22:42 <garyo-home>	+1
 107 19:22:47 <stevenknight>	+1
 108 19:22:58 <bdbaddog>	Like AddToCBuilder?
 109 19:23:20 *	stevenknight applauds garyo-home's ability to put things much more economically
 110 19:23:31 <garyo-home>	bdbaddog: Maybe, but let's not design it now, just make a ticket for later.
 111 19:23:33 <stevenknight>	bdbaddog:  something like that
 112 19:23:54 <stevenknight>	i'd genericize it somehow (wave hands mumble mumble)
 113 19:24:03 <garyo-home>	yes.
 114 19:24:12 <bdbaddog>	:) yeah. that's probably why it's not done already.
 115 19:24:43 <garyo-home>	1442, folks?
 116 19:24:46 <stevenknight>	1442:  sounds like greg's right
 117 19:25:02 <garyo-home>	In that case, maybe it's already better due to David's stuff?
 118 19:25:29 <stevenknight>	maybe
 119 19:25:33 <garyo-home>	Anyone have a mingw env?
 120 19:26:01 <garyo-home>	ok, guess not.
 121 19:26:08 <stevenknight>	not me
 122 19:26:23 <stevenknight>	i really want to set up buildbots with the more common windows configs
 123 19:26:28 <GregNoel>	1439: concur (I'm back, BTW)
 124 19:26:30 <stevenknight>	one for MinGW, one for Cygwin, etc.
 125 19:27:36 <bdbaddog>	looks like I have cygwin with mingw-g77 installed.
 126 19:27:48 <stevenknight>	the more i think about it, the more 1442 seems like a really interesting case
 127 19:27:57 <GregNoel>	how so?
 128 19:28:04 <stevenknight>	conceptually i agree w/Greg's analysis that .f is clearly an error
 129 19:28:21 <stevenknight>	but if so, how would you specify the weird corner case where you really *did* want to archive .f files?
 130 19:28:46 <stevenknight>	after all, there's no reason why you should be prohibited from doing that
 131 19:29:00 <stevenknight>	just because there's a more common use case of .f files generating .o files
 132 19:29:13 <GregNoel>	You need an "ar" builder, not a library builder
 133 19:29:13 <garyo-home>	... or .c files for that matter.  Maybe File nodes would do it?
 134 19:29:33 <stevenknight>	hmm, interesting distinction
 135 19:29:36 <bdbaddog>	doesn mingw builder setup fortran at all?
 136 19:29:44 <GregNoel>	The archive builders take any file suffix
 137 19:30:26 <stevenknight>	hmm, i think Gary's right -- File nodes circumvent the suffix checking
 138 19:30:41 <bdbaddog>	nope. mingw sets up the following:
 139 19:30:41 <bdbaddog>	    gnu_tools = ['gcc', 'g++', 'gnulink', 'ar', 'gas', 'm4']
 140 19:30:42 <GregNoel>	you sure?
 141 19:30:49 <stevenknight>	nope
 142 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
 143 19:32:02 <garyo-home>	It's a pretty atypical case though.
 144 19:32:05 <GregNoel>	Uh, "ar" archives don't have a .a suffix; that's only for libraries.
 145 19:32:30 <GregNoel>	The suffix is usually .ar or none at all
 146 19:32:58 <garyo-home>	greg: never seen such a thing myself.
 147 19:33:01 <stevenknight>	yeah, the case is atypical
 148 19:33:10 <stevenknight>	but i think the potential for confusion remains
 149 19:33:19 <stevenknight>	if there is more than one builder that causes "ar" to be invoked
 150 19:33:48 <bdbaddog>	has anyone run into a build which used ar for things other than static libraries?
 151 19:33:50 <garyo-home>	They could always use Command() if Library() doesn't do what they want.
 152 19:33:51 <GregNoel>	Really?  More than one builder causes 'gcc' to be invoked...
 153 19:34:11 <stevenknight>	hmm, fair point.  i'm probably worrying needlessly
 154 19:34:21 <garyo-home>	I think so :-)
 155 19:34:25 <GregNoel>	bdbaddog, you're not old enough; the evolution was the other way around
 156 19:35:04 <GregNoel>	'ar' was used to build archives; eventually, archives of .o files were acceptable to the linker
 157 19:35:15 <garyo-home>	So where does that leave 1442?
 158 19:35:41 <stevenknight>	dup
 159 19:35:45 <GregNoel>	dup
 160 19:35:48 <garyo-home>	ok.
 161 19:35:56 <bdbaddog>	dup of ?
 162 19:36:04 <bdbaddog>	mingw builder doesn't setup g77...
 163 19:36:09 <garyo-home>	1437 says the ssheet.
 164 19:36:34 <GregNoel>	That's "better error messages when tool not configured"
 165 19:37:10 <stevenknight>	ah, but bill's point is good:  our default doesn't even make this possible
 166 19:37:17 <bdbaddog>	ahh. o.k. well it's a dup and also it's mingw doesn't setup g77 though.
 167 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.
 168 19:38:20 <garyo-home>	There's also 1895, g77 and gfortran not detected on windows  which is about mingw.
 169 19:39:21 <garyo-home>	Seems like 1442 could be a dup of 1895.
 170 19:39:49 <GregNoel>	(other way around; use the earlier issue as the basis)
 171 19:40:08 <garyo-home>	greg: you're right.
 172 19:40:59 <garyo-home>	1895 is research, p3, david.  So mark 1895 as dup of 1442, and make 1442 research, p3, david.
 173 19:41:18 <GregNoel>	done; 1443?
 174 19:41:58 <garyo-home>	There is now a SHFORTRANFLAGS, so I presume it could get set to /fPIC if appropriate.
 175 19:42:13 <GregNoel>	oops, brb
 176 19:42:36 <garyo-home>	But it's clearly David's if it's still broken.  1.0.x p3 David?
 177 19:45:03 <garyo-home>	Can we just give 1449 and 1450 to Jim, 1.x p3, keyword "quoting"?
 178 19:45:34 <garyo-home>	h'lo?
 179 19:46:06 *	sgk_ (n=stevenkn@c-69-181-234-155.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
 180 19:46:23 <sgk_>	hmm, looks like the server i was connected to died
 181 19:46:29 <garyo-home>	Hi again, didn't even see you drop out.
 182 19:46:31 <sgk_>	what was the last you got from me?
 183 19:46:41 <garyo-home>	"our default doesn't even make this possible"
 184 19:47:05 <sgk_>	so maybe it's a one liner of 'g77' (or more likely 'gfortran') to the mingw tool list
 185 19:47:26 <sgk_>	anyone object to that solution for...  1.x p3?
 186 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."
 187 19:47:53 <garyo-home>	If it's trivial, could be in 1.0.x, right?
 188 19:48:00 <sgk_>	yeah
 189 19:48:06 <sgk_>	1.0.x p3?
 190 19:48:09 <garyo-home>	OK.
 191 19:48:12 <sgk_>	done
 192 19:48:19 <garyo-home>	Can we just give 1449 and 1450 to Jim, 1.x p3, keyword "quoting"?
 193 19:48:34 <sgk_>	+1
 194 19:48:39 <garyo-home>	sorry, "research" ?
 195 19:49:02 <garyo-home>	research was the ssheet consensus but I kind of think it's 1.x timeframe stuff.
 196 19:49:06 <sgk_>	sure, research
 197 19:49:14 <sgk_>	research p3 "quoting"
 198 19:49:20 <sgk_>	done
 199 19:49:22 <GregNoel>	dkjak
 200 19:49:23 <garyo-home>	good.
 201 19:49:30 <sgk_>	1452:
 202 19:49:46 <sgk_>	1.x p3 me
 203 19:49:48 <garyo-home>	sounds like that one's yours, Steven.
 204 19:49:58 <garyo-home>	ok, done.
 205 19:50:06 <GregNoel>	yes
 206 19:50:15 <sgk_>	1456:  research, me "VisualStudio"
 207 19:50:55 <garyo-home>	maybe, but I like "invalid" -- can't just have msvc as the *only* tool.
 208 19:51:21 <GregNoel>	true, but a better message would help
 209 19:51:47 <garyo-home>	fine, in that case it's dup of the "better errors" one, not VisualStudio.
 210 19:51:51 <sgk_>	oh, hey, even better
 211 19:52:04 <sgk_>	that makes it a toolchain issue and i can give it to you guys...  :-)
 212 19:52:18 <GregNoel>	that's why I said dup 1437, better messages
 213 19:52:20 <sgk_>	invalid is good, though
 214 19:52:31 <sgk_>	either one is fine w/me 
 215 19:52:41 <GregNoel>	Let's go with dup
 216 19:52:53 <garyo-home>	Yes, that gives the OP more info.
 217 19:53:00 <sgk_>	ok, dup 1437
 218 19:53:03 <GregNoel>	done
 219 19:53:23 <sgk_>	1458:  dup 1437 as well
 220 19:53:24 <garyo-home>	1458, same.
 221 19:53:27 <GregNoel>	yes
 222 19:53:54 <garyo-home>	1459, does Ludwig have a prototype of this already?
 223 19:53:55 <sgk_>	1459:  Ludwig
 224 19:54:10 <garyo-home>	+1
 225 19:54:18 <GregNoel>	He was looking at it; I think he has an idea
 226 19:54:44 <garyo-home>	Good.
 227 19:54:44 <GregNoel>	His experiments showed very little impact due to the size of buffer
 228 19:54:54 *	stevenknight has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
 229 19:55:12 <sgk_>	Ludwig, any appropriate target milestone + priority
 230 19:55:18 <GregNoel>	done
 231 19:55:59 <GregNoel>	1460
 232 19:56:00 <sgk_>	1460:  i'm agnostic
 233 19:56:20 <GregNoel>	interesting choice of word...
 234 19:56:50 <garyo-home>	I can take it.  Any time; 1.0.x p3?
 235 19:56:56 <sgk_>	works for me
 236 19:57:07 <GregNoel>	works
 237 19:57:09 <garyo-home>	ok.
 238 19:57:22 <sgk_>	1462:  worksforme
 239 19:57:26 <sgk_>	i'm a dual core
 240 19:57:39 <sgk_>	it can be re-opened if it's still a problem elsewhere
 241 19:57:40 <garyo-home>	Sounds like you tried pretty hard to repro it.
 242 19:57:48 <garyo-home>	worksforme works for me.
 243 19:57:50 <sgk_>	but my guess is some of Benoit's Taskmaster changes have fixed it
 244 19:57:53 <sgk_>	:-)
 245 19:58:11 <GregNoel>	That would be my guess as well
 246 19:58:26 <garyo-home>	1464: agree, wontfix.
 247 19:58:33 <sgk_>	done
 248 19:58:46 <GregNoel>	done
 249 19:58:58 <sgk_>	1466:  me, research, VisualStudio
 250 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
 251 19:59:14 <GregNoel>	OK, worst case you toss it to us.
 252 19:59:21 <sgk_>	yes
 253 19:59:33 <garyo-home>	ok.
 254 19:59:40 <sgk_>	1468:  1.0.x p2?
 255 19:59:57 <GregNoel>	at least
 256 20:00:02 <sgk_>	sounds pretty serious
 257 20:00:15 <garyo-home>	People must be working around it.
 258 20:00:26 <GregNoel>	working by blind luck is another way of saying pretty serious...
 259 20:00:33 <sgk_>	yeah
 260 20:00:37 <sgk_>	1.0.x p1?
 261 20:00:43 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me.
 262 20:00:48 <GregNoel>	yes
 263 20:00:52 <sgk_>	done
 264 20:01:21 <sgk_>	1469:  d'oh!  wonfix
 265 20:01:24 <sgk_>	wontfix
 266 20:01:25 <sgk_>	greg is right
 267 20:01:32 <garyo-home>	agreed.
 268 20:01:36 <GregNoel>	done
 269 20:01:41 <sgk_>	1471:  closed
 270 20:01:43 <sgk_>	1476:
 271 20:01:57 <sgk_>	research, me
 272 20:02:13 <sgk_>	(sorry, trying to get through these quick, I have to start winding down)
 273 20:02:30 <sgk_>	1478:  research, me, VisualStudio
 274 20:02:34 <garyo-home>	Me too.  OK, 1476 is yours.
 275 20:02:48 <sgk_>	1478:  gary, fixed?
 276 20:02:48 <GregNoel>	1476: you're welcome to it
 277 20:02:53 <sgk_>	1483:  gary, fixed?
 278 20:03:05 <garyo-home>	1478: hopefully will be overtaken by vsvars.bat stuff
 279 20:03:31 <sgk_>	yes re: 1478 & vsvars.bat
 280 20:03:51 <sgk_>	1488:  1.x p3 me
 281 20:04:07 <garyo-home>	1483: yes, I consider that fixed.
 282 20:04:44 <sgk_>	cool
 283 20:04:49 <GregNoel>	Now would be a good time for me to quit; our guests are watching the football game...
 284 20:05:01 <garyo-home>	I should go too.  Next week?
 285 20:05:03 <sgk_>	and i have a dog that needs walking and won't wait
 286 20:05:09 <sgk_>	same time?
 287 20:05:13 <garyo-home>	OK for me.
 288 20:05:17 <GregNoel>	done
 289 20:05:23 <GregNoel>	later, all...
 290 20:05:24 <garyo-home>	good, bye for now!
 291 20:05:28 <sgk_>	done (and i'll remember Monday night this time...)
 292 20:05:29 <sgk_>	later..
 293 20:05:36 *	sgk_ has quit ("Leaving")
 294 20:05:45 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906]")
 295 

BugParty/IrcLog2008-06-30 (last edited 2008-07-04 18:08:05 by ip68-7-77-81)