1 16:54:30 * garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
2 16:55:27 * bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-142-75-191.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
3 17:10:54 * jason_at_intel (n=jason_at@bementil-116.illinois.prairieinet.net) has joined #scons
4 17:22:51 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@67.218.106.140) has joined #scons
5 17:28:44 <stevenknight> hello all
6 17:28:49 <garyo-home> Hi guys, I'm here.
7 17:28:53 <bdbaddog> Greetings!
8 17:28:59 <garyo-home> Welcome, Bill!
9 17:29:03 <GregNoel> Hi, all; just got here myself.
10 17:29:23 <GregNoel> Shall we start?
11 17:29:39 <stevenknight> ready when you are
12 17:29:40 <garyo-home> Sure. I put some quick comments in the spreadsheet, hope that's helpful.
13 17:29:52 <stevenknight> always
14 17:30:05 * GregNoel has mislaid his glasses...
15 17:30:30 <stevenknight> GregNoel, glasses, P1
16 17:30:34 <garyo-home> :-)
17 17:31:09 <GregNoel> Actually, p0, since I can't read the spreadsheet very well without them...
18 17:30:28 <jason_at_intel> hello all
19 17:30:41 <stevenknight> hi jason
20 17:30:57 <garyo-home> 1766: consensus 2.x p4 someone
21 17:31:10 <stevenknight> 1766: done
22 17:31:29 <GregNoel> ok, although I'm already worried about getting too much in 2.x
23 17:31:43 <garyo-home> it's p4 though
24 17:32:00 <stevenknight> we've generally said that 2.x will require some sort of re-classification
25 17:32:20 <GregNoel> Yeah, but how often do we push out an issue?
26 17:32:38 <stevenknight> 42 times
27 17:32:41 <bdbaddog> :)
28 17:32:54 <GregNoel> Yeah, that's "the answer" all right
29 17:32:49 <garyo-home> I'm OK w/ 3.x instead if you like.
30 17:32:55 <stevenknight> after that, it's history
31 17:33:01 <stevenknight> i'm okay with 3.x too
32 17:33:16 <GregNoel> 3.x p2?
33 17:33:21 <stevenknight> works for me
34 17:33:25 <garyo-home> p3, it's still cosmetic.
35 17:33:53 <GregNoel> OK, done
36 17:33:54 <garyo-home> ?
37 17:33:57 <garyo-home> ok
38 17:34:10 <stevenknight> 1766: 3.x p2 done
39 17:34:20 * Azverkan (n=chatzill@99.52.200.251) has joined #scons
40 17:34:42 <GregNoel> Hi, Brandon, we've already started
41 17:34:54 <stevenknight> hey Brandon
42 17:34:55 <garyo-home> Hi Brandon!
43 17:35:01 <garyo-home> Wow, full house tonight!
44 17:35:04 <Azverkan> hey
45 17:34:28 <garyo-home> I think 1202 is not that easy.
46 17:34:30 <stevenknight> 1202: consensus 2.x p2 TBD?
47 17:35:31 <GregNoel> 1202: who?
48 17:35:50 <garyo-home> I'm afraid Steven's the only one who understands that.
49 17:36:01 <stevenknight> yeah, probably right
50 17:36:13 <stevenknight> 1202: 2.x p2 stevenknight
51 17:36:16 <GregNoel> done
52 17:36:23 <jason_at_intel> it is known that chdir does not work with -j option?
53 17:36:39 <garyo-home> That's another wrinkle.
54 17:36:51 <stevenknight> jason_at_intel: yes, it's documented in the man page
55 17:36:52 <jason_at_intel> ok
56 17:37:14 <stevenknight> Python doesn't have separate chdir per thread
57 17:37:21 <stevenknight> 1205:
58 17:37:28 <garyo-home> 1205: Steven, your idea is excellent. We get it so much on the mailing list.
59 17:37:43 <garyo-home> Just subst the strings and compare.
60 17:38:01 <garyo-home> I could do that.
61 17:38:01 <GregNoel> Concur, but subst too often and it's expensive.
62 17:38:13 <garyo-home> Greg: only do it just before printing the error.
63 17:38:19 <Azverkan> only case that breaks down for its env['ENV']
64 17:38:28 <stevenknight> but this is kind of a corner case anyway, when you have the same target through two construction environments
65 17:38:40 <stevenknight> so it shouldn't be critical path
66 17:38:35 <GregNoel> Hmmm... Do you have both envs at that point?
67 17:38:44 <stevenknight> yes, you have both
68 17:38:53 <stevenknight> the new one and the one already attached to the target
69 17:38:55 <GregNoel> OK, I'll buy it, 2.x
70 17:39:14 <stevenknight> 1205: 2.x p2 garyo
71 17:39:17 <GregNoel> done
72 17:38:59 <jason_at_intel> I agree.. it woudl be nice to have an option to show it however
73 17:39:19 <jason_at_intel> In large builds this can help find problems
74 17:39:24 <garyo-home> Jason: yes would be nice, but who'd ever turn it on. :-)
75 17:39:39 <stevenknight> extra credit for a warning option...
76 17:39:45 <jason_at_intel> Gary.. We would to test why a build failed
77 17:39:48 <garyo-home> ok, we'll see.
78 17:39:48 <stevenknight> gary gets to help clean the erasers
79 17:40:07 <GregNoel> {;-}
80 17:40:12 <stevenknight> 1888:
81 17:40:16 <GregNoel> 1888: Dependency loops in Java and FORTRAN.
82 17:40:16 <GregNoel> All it takes is two files: A which uses something in B, and B which uses something in A. This is permitted, legal, and common practice in both languages. The solution in both languages is to compile both files in the same batch.
83 17:40:16 <GregNoel> The simple solution would appear to be to put the files from the implicit scan into the command line (i.e., add them to SOURCES). This works for Java, but FORTRAN can also include files the same way that C does, so either the scanner has to return two lists or you need two scanners (hence, an "additional source scanner").
84 17:40:16 <GregNoel> If you've only got a few files, just putting the additional files in SOURCES is fine. However, if you have a lot of files, you can blow out the command line or the limits of the compiler.
85 17:40:16 <GregNoel> In that case, you need to calculate subsets such that the sources that refer to each other (dependency cycles) are all in the same subset and the subsets form a DAG. Each subset can then be dispatched independently (subject to the usual restrictions).
86 17:40:16 <GregNoel> Fortunately, there are at least three algorithms to calculate these subsets, each with varying pros and cons. We may chose not to worry about too many sources initially, but we'll have to do it eventually.
87 17:40:16 <GregNoel> Depending on how we approach it, this evaluation may generate new nodes that will have to be added to the build DAG. I don't know how to do that (or even if it can be done), but that's probably the nastiest aspect that will have to be overcome.
88 17:40:46 <stevenknight> if only we could harness GregNoel's mad typing skillz for a benign purpose... :-)
89 17:40:58 <jason_at_intel> lol
90 17:41:10 <GregNoel> practice, practice, practice...
91 17:41:15 <Azverkan> C code has the same as above too
92 17:41:18 <stevenknight> reading...
93 17:41:21 <Azverkan> DLL depends on EXE depends on DLL
94 17:41:38 <garyo-home> Azverkan: yes, but you never have to compile them both together.
95 17:41:43 <GregNoel> Not the same library, I hope
96 17:41:46 <Azverkan> but in that case you have to compile a dummy DLL, then the real EXE then the real DLL
97 17:42:14 <jason_at_intel> which bug is this?
98 17:42:30 <garyo-home> 1888.
99 17:42:21 <garyo-home> In Windows, you only need the .lib and that's partly why.
100 17:42:34 * GregNoel never ceases to be amazed at the perversity of DOS
101 17:43:02 <bdbaddog> I hear u there. dll != shared library...
102 17:43:11 <jason_at_intel> don't blame DOS.. it a mainframe thing from IBM
103 17:43:34 <bdbaddog> wasn't in VAX/VMS though.. (Mr. Cutler)
104 17:42:29 <stevenknight> GregNoel: do you see a path to it without some heavy rearchitecting?
105 17:43:27 <GregNoel> I'm not sure. I think we could get there with stepwise refinement.
106 17:44:17 <GregNoel> It would need some planning, though
107 17:44:00 <garyo-home> Would batch building help, at least some?
108 17:44:28 <GregNoel> Yes, we're retriaging it because it was blocked by the batch builder issue
109 17:44:09 <stevenknight> Greg has the strongest handle on it, so...
110 17:44:18 <garyo-home> agreed!
111 17:44:25 <stevenknight> 1888: GregNoel, 2.x, p4?
112 17:44:34 <garyo-home> 3.x?
113 17:44:38 <garyo-home> :-/
114 17:44:39 <stevenknight> i can go with 3.x
115 17:44:43 <GregNoel> Ouch! That's what I get; yeah, 3.x
116 17:45:01 <stevenknight> the architect-y pieces make it seem more Greg than David
117 17:45:19 <stevenknight> okay, 1888: GregNoel, 3.x p4 done
118 17:45:28 <GregNoel> I may create some partial issues that make up the steps; they may need to be done sooner
119 17:46:44 <stevenknight> GregNoel: ++ to partial steps
120 17:45:31 <jason_at_intel> I have to agree with Davids note
121 17:45:43 <jason_at_intel> those cycles are wrong
122 17:45:54 <GregNoel> Which note?
123 17:46:38 <garyo-home> Jason?
124 17:46:40 <jason_at_intel> I don't know Dependency cycles just seem wrong to me,...
125 17:47:04 <jason_at_intel> sure... Just dicovered this GUI does not support copy and paste :-(
126 17:47:04 <garyo-home> That's Steven's note (considered assigning it to David)
127 17:47:04 <GregNoel> Er, that's Steven's note, nominating David
128 17:47:04 <stevenknight> jason_at_intel: that was me (far left column)
129 17:47:24 <GregNoel> jinx
130 17:47:22 <jason_at_intel> ahh... my bad
131 17:47:22 <stevenknight> onward?
132 17:47:24 <garyo-home> Anyway, how about 2286?
133 17:47:54 <stevenknight> 2286: I'm cool with VisualStudio keyword and putting it in that pot
134 17:48:06 <stevenknight> Brandon, if you have some cycles to consult on things these days...
135 17:48:11 <GregNoel> Since I have no clue, I'm fine with that.
136 17:48:08 <garyo-home> But is there anything to do really? Brandon?
137 17:48:15 <stevenknight> I've been in the midst of some serious Windows / Visual Studio refactoring
138 17:48:36 <stevenknight> would appreciate being able to reality-check things with you
139 17:48:45 <Azverkan> its up to what we want to support
140 17:49:06 <Azverkan> I personally think precompiled headers are useless and not worth supporting so I'm a bad person to task
141 17:49:25 <GregNoel> Azverkan, hear, hear
142 17:49:10 <stevenknight> Azverkan: is this an area where there's a clearly "right" way
143 17:49:19 <stevenknight> so that we should only support that?
144 17:49:21 <jason_at_intel> Should i send you my re_vamp work steve?
145 17:49:22 <garyo-home> How about closing the bug with a HOWTO that explains the SCons Way?
146 17:49:35 <stevenknight> or is this up to the project and we need to support multiple ways of doing things anyway?
147 17:49:35 <Azverkan> the problem is that precompiled headers are extremely buggy
148 17:49:49 <Azverkan> if you compile with code optimization enabled you'll get mangled assembly alot
149 17:49:50 <garyo-home> Azverkan: agree, I never use PCH even though I do Windows all the time
150 17:49:33 <jason_at_intel> just a note one this
151 17:49:45 <jason_at_intel> pre-compiled headers will speed up builds
152 17:50:00 <jason_at_intel> but they are complex to setup for larger projects
153 17:50:15 <jason_at_intel> and take a long time to build, compared to just building smarter
154 17:50:10 <stevenknight> jason_at_intel: sure, let's sync up off-line -- any help is appreciated
155 17:50:31 <jason_at_intel> OK will sync off line
156 17:51:01 <GregNoel> So what's the consensus?
157 17:51:10 <Azverkan> one thing I would definitely not do is enable precompiled headers for visual studio by default
158 17:51:15 <Azverkan> make the user explicitly do it
159 17:51:27 <Azverkan> as the assembly generation will break for optimized builds in a lot of known cases
160 17:51:16 <jason_at_intel> I woudl be for just skipping this
161 17:51:26 <garyo-home> Jason: have to do something.
162 17:51:45 <jason_at_intel> I mean make the users do it
163 17:51:47 <garyo-home> How about Brandon closes the bug with a comment explaining a better way?
164 17:52:36 <GregNoel> garyo-home, worksforme; Azverkan, OK with you?
165 17:51:59 <jason_at_intel> it not easy to setup in VS in the first place
166 17:52:31 <jason_at_intel> plus it will mess up builds of C++ with templates
167 17:52:31 <stevenknight> right now i'm leaning towards documenting that you have to do this
168 17:52:38 <stevenknight> adding the .obj to your list explicitly isn't hard
169 17:52:45 <stevenknight> and it makes what's going on obvious
170 17:52:56 <jason_at_intel> I woudl second the documentation solution
171 17:52:56 <stevenknight> i'd be leary of magically adding the .obj file for someone under the covers
172 17:53:06 <stevenknight> which seems to be the only way to solve this in code
173 17:52:59 <bdbaddog> +1
174 17:53:05 <Azverkan> only thing I would want to double check is that there isn't explicit PCH support in the existing MSVC compiler tool definition
175 17:53:14 <Azverkan> if not then I say ok
176 17:53:21 <garyo-home> ok w/ me too
177 17:53:42 <stevenknight> Azverkan: can we put your name on it and you and I sync up on it later?
178 17:53:48 <Azverkan> sure
179 17:54:14 <stevenknight> okay, 2286: 2.x p3 Azverkan
180 17:54:18 <stevenknight> change the component to documentation
181 17:54:21 <GregNoel> done; make it research to get it off the bug party's plate?
182 17:54:31 <stevenknight> research is good
183 17:54:49 <GregNoel> I'll do that; next?
184 17:55:11 <stevenknight> 2287: 2.x p3
185 17:55:38 <GregNoel> 2287, if adding all of the directory is easy (and I think it is), then I'll agree with 2.x p3
186 17:55:12 <stevenknight> who?
187 17:55:17 <garyo-home> I'll do that.
188 17:55:37 <garyo-home> I have a few RedHat machines I can use.
189 17:56:05 <GregNoel> OK, garyo, done
190 17:56:07 <stevenknight> okay, 2287: 2.x p3 garyo, feel free to push it out if it's hard
191 17:56:13 <garyo-home> will do.
192 17:56:11 <stevenknight> done
193 17:56:20 <stevenknight> 2288: consensus invalid
194 17:56:34 <GregNoel> done
195 17:57:01 <stevenknight> 2289: GregNoel, invalid or wontfix based on info
196 17:57:26 <GregNoel> 2289: I'd prefer to skip it until next time
197 17:57:39 <stevenknight> okay, if you want to retriage that's fine
198 17:57:49 <GregNoel> done
199 17:58:21 <stevenknight> 2291: 2.x p3, anyone other than me?
200 17:58:28 <garyo-home> 2291: isn't ctypes to be preferred over pywin32?
201 17:58:45 <garyo-home> Azverkan?
202 17:58:49 <GregNoel> Can it be handled by compat?
203 17:59:00 <stevenknight> seems to me like it should be if it's now part of standard Python
204 17:59:10 <garyo-home> That might be even better.
205 17:59:21 <Azverkan> only potentially issue with ctypes is 64 bit python binaries
206 17:59:37 <garyo-home> ?
207 17:59:44 <jason_at_intel> pywin32 has the same issue does it not?
208 18:00:02 <Azverkan> pywin32 has those issues in the COM code
209 18:00:07 <Azverkan> but not for the win32api stuff
210 18:00:29 <jason_at_intel> hmm I most have a bad drop then
211 18:01:28 <garyo-home> Jason, do you have a win64 machine w/ 64-bit python?
212 18:01:37 <jason_at_intel> yep
213 18:01:47 <garyo-home> Maybe you could help Azverkan test this?
214 18:01:50 <Azverkan> I would say make ctypes the default and somebody just fixes ctypes to work if it still doesn't out of the box
215 18:01:55 <jason_at_intel> I have been tweaking some Parts code for 64-bit python
216 18:01:59 <Azverkan> (only has 64bit machines now)
217 18:02:25 <jason_at_intel> the difference is if you run 32-bit python or 64-bit python
218 18:03:10 <jason_at_intel> I have limited experence with ctypes.. however so far i find pywin32 easier.. but i may not understand ctype well enough yet
219 18:03:34 <garyo-home> I think the point is to reduce dependencies where possible.
220 18:04:09 <Azverkan> ctypes is just building up stack memory and jumping to random addresses, it just means that in python you need to manually support every possible calling convention on every architecture instead of letting the compiler do it
221 18:04:29 <jason_at_intel> so the current solution to use pywin32 then ctypes is good since most people will not have ctypes unless they have a newer python
222 18:04:59 <garyo-home> ... but then people with newer python *still* need pywin32 (OK, who really *doesn't* need that on Windows?)
223 18:05:12 * garyo-home is arguing with himself
224 18:05:27 <GregNoel> Who's winning? {;-}
225 18:05:38 <jason_at_intel> activestate python has been shipping it as standard for some time
226 18:05:38 <Azverkan> billg
227 18:06:10 <Azverkan> ctypes does exist for old versions of python, probably back to 2.0
228 18:06:12 <jason_at_intel> there was another python package that did as well.. forgot the name
229 18:06:14 <garyo-home> I guess pywin32, fallback to ctypes makes sense.
230 18:06:20 <Azverkan> so you could drop pywin32 completely
231 18:06:45 <garyo-home> you mean a user could drop it? yes.
232 18:06:56 <jason_at_intel> can we have SCOn support python 2.5 or better on windows only?
233 18:07:54 <jason_at_intel> One thought is that most people on windows will get python 2.6 now
234 18:08:33 <jason_at_intel> this is not like Linux which ships with python.. you have to install it, so you tend to get the new versions
235 18:07:25 <garyo-home> Let's not unless forced to. This isn't the forcing issue.
236 18:07:47 <bdbaddog> is ctypes or pywin32 faster?
237 18:08:00 <Azverkan> ctypes is probably 1/10th or less the size of pywin32
238 18:08:05 <stevenknight> hmm... seems like this is a research issue?
239 18:08:09 <garyo-home> All this patch does is set a flag somewhere.
240 18:08:12 <bdbaddog> yes research.
241 18:08:16 <garyo-home> Speed's not an issue.
242 18:08:23 <Azverkan> jason_at_intel: the problem is that things like FX Composer force you to install python24
243 18:08:52 <jason_at_intel> FX Composer?
244 18:09:05 <Azverkan> http://developer.nvidia.com/object/fx_composer_home.html
245 18:09:10 <garyo-home> Azverkan, can you take it and research?
246 18:09:16 <Azverkan> sure
247 18:09:23 <stevenknight> okay
248 18:09:31 <stevenknight> 2291: Azverkan, research
249 18:09:32 <stevenknight> done
250 18:09:34 <GregNoel> done
251 18:10:00 <stevenknight> 2292:
252 18:10:22 <stevenknight> lump it in with the previous PCH issue?
253 18:10:17 <Azverkan> 2292 depends on the other stdafx bug I think
254 18:10:29 <stevenknight> what Azverkan said
255 18:10:45 <GregNoel> link them or dup one?
256 18:10:59 <garyo-home> link, I think. They seem a bit different.
257 18:11:01 <Azverkan> link for now
258 18:11:08 <stevenknight> heads up: my shuttle stop in 5-10 minutes
259 18:11:32 <garyo-home> 2293: another PCH
260 18:11:38 <stevenknight> simpler, though
261 18:11:53 <stevenknight> I just hit this one myself today
262 18:12:06 <stevenknight> Greg's basically right
263 18:12:23 <GregNoel> I think this is from when we separated CCFLAGS out; this tool was never changed.
264 18:12:23 <stevenknight> I don't see a reason not to include $CCFLAGS on the $PCHCOM command line
265 18:12:38 <GregNoel> what stevenknight said
266 18:12:40 <garyo-home> I believe it.
267 18:13:04 <garyo-home> I'll do it in that case.
268 18:13:05 <GregNoel> 2.1 p2 garyo?
269 18:13:13 <garyo-home> sure.
270 18:13:17 <GregNoel> done
271 18:13:20 <stevenknight> could be anytime, actually
272 18:13:31 <garyo-home> I'll try to do it sooner.
273 18:13:52 <GregNoel> anytime it is
274 18:14:02 <stevenknight> done
275 18:14:12 <garyo-home> 2294: Greg, you tried this?
276 18:14:16 <stevenknight> 2294: return for more info / reproducible test case?
277 18:14:28 <garyo-home> +1
278 18:14:40 <garyo-home> (esp. OS/compiler)
279 18:14:54 <GregNoel> yes, but I didn't get any configure messages, and the case succeeded. The log had both messages reported
280 18:15:07 <stevenknight> so worksforme?
281 18:15:38 <GregNoel> It still gets the unexpected "no result" message; I have no idea where it comes from
282 18:15:29 <Azverkan> when I tried Configure I've run into similar problems with ldconfig problems in the compiler getting hidden
283 18:15:42 <Azverkan> I think the main problem is that its not spammy enough in a log file somewhere
284 18:16:09 <garyo-home> The log file does get everything, I think, but it's not always easy to find.
285 18:16:24 <stevenknight> you can say that again...
286 18:16:32 <GregNoel> Get more info and try again next time?
287 18:16:34 <Azverkan> I could have sworn I've seen it drop things from children of child processes
288 18:16:37 <garyo-home> anyway, I still like get more info.
289 18:16:54 <garyo-home> Azverkan: could be...
290 18:17:24 <GregNoel> Brandon, you want to look into it?
291 18:17:37 <stevenknight> last minute for me
292 18:17:43 <Azverkan> I know zero about the configure stuff
293 18:17:59 <GregNoel> then skip for now; I'll get more info
294 18:18:02 <GregNoel> last one?
295 18:18:00 <garyo-home> 2295 is consensus 2.x p2/p3
296 18:18:18 <GregNoel> who?
297 18:18:06 <stevenknight> my suggestion: 2295 2.x p3 me or someone else
298 18:18:06 <GregNoel> done
299 18:18:19 <garyo-home> ok, just in time!
300 18:18:25 <stevenknight> if you guys want to continue with 2005q1 there's a lot of consensus there
301 18:18:30 <stevenknight> could even be pulled out off-line
302 18:18:52 <stevenknight> i'd be totally okay with what you decide
303 18:18:48 <GregNoel> I can't; going out to dinner in 20 mins
304 18:18:59 <stevenknight> okay
305 18:19:13 <garyo-home> I'll volunteer to input the consensus ones from that spreadsheet
306 18:19:17 <stevenknight> i might take a pass through that spreadsheet on the bus tomorrow then and handle the obvious cases?
307 18:19:31 <GregNoel> worksforme; mark them in the spreadsheet
308 18:19:45 <stevenknight> okay
309 18:19:49 <stevenknight> i'm gone
310 18:19:49 <garyo-home> Steven, you'll do that then?
311 18:19:50 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
312 18:20:12 <GregNoel> (use "join columns" so you can make the message wider)
313 18:20:22 <garyo-home> OK guys, sounds like that's it for tonight, thanks all for showing up!
314 18:20:36 <GregNoel> Yes, good to see you all!
315 18:20:36 <bdbaddog> no problemo
316 18:20:39 <jason_at_intel> ok latter
317 18:20:49 <GregNoel> Will we see you all two weeks from now?
318 18:20:57 <jason_at_intel> yes
319 18:21:07 <garyo-home> Yes, I can do it.
320 18:21:10 <Azverkan> be in taiwan then not sure what time the bugparty lands there :)
321 18:25:39 * garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.5/2008120122]")
322 18:26:13 * jason_at_intel has quit (" HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- s0 d4Mn l33t |t'z 5c4rY!")
323 18:54:59 * bdbaddog has quit ("Leaving.")
324 21:50:10 * Azverkan (n=chatzill@99.52.200.251) has left #scons
325
