1 16:53:37 * bdbaddog (~bdeegan@adsl-71-131-20-38.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
2 16:59:35 * GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
3 16:59:43 * Jason_at_Intel (~chatzilla@12.18.240.224) has joined #scons
4 17:03:01 * sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-qeheyykyhlqublpj) has joined #scons
5 17:03:10 <GregNoel> Hey, Steven...
6 17:03:16 <sgk> hey
7 17:03:20 <Jason_at_Intel> hello steve
8 17:03:25 <bdbaddog> Greetings!
9 17:04:08 <GregNoel> I see bdbaddog, Jason_at_Intel, techtonik, and loonycyborg here; are you all here for the bug party?
10 17:04:21 <Jason_at_Intel> yep
11 17:04:27 <bdbaddog> Unless theres some other party going on.. ;)
12 17:05:05 * loonycyborg loves celebrating bugs :P
13 17:05:55 * sgk still hasn't recovered from the weekend
14 17:06:15 <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?
15 17:06:22 <sgk> let's do it
16 17:06:40 <GregNoel> 1910, sgk wanted to talk about it
17 17:06:59 <sgk> yeah, i updated with a patch and explanation of the (minor) dilemma
18 17:07:13 <sgk> there's this functionality i had totally forgotten about
19 17:07:26 <sgk> where if you set a BUILDERS entry to a function (or other callable)
20 17:07:35 <sgk> it's okay as long as calling that function *returns* a builder
21 17:07:54 <sgk> this makes it kind of like what we currently advise people do with AddMethod()
22 17:08:17 <sgk> except that AddMethod() is generic, so to make something added via AddMethod() look like a real Builder
23 17:08:25 <sgk> you have to do your own argument interpretation, etc.
24 17:09:05 <sgk> adding a callable wrapper to a BUILDERS entry makes it look more like a real Builder automatically
25 17:09:45 <GregNoel> What do you want to do with it?
26 17:09:54 <sgk> i wanted to discuss because supporting this features means the 1910 OP doesn't get his problem solved
27 17:10:10 <sgk> because he was setting BUILDERS to a function that didn't return a Builder
28 17:10:14 <sgk> which is a condition we can't quite catch
29 17:10:44 <sgk> i think the best we can do is document that you can add callables to BUILDERS
30 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
31 17:11:26 <sgk> sound good?
32 17:11:37 <Jason_at_Intel> this is 1910?
33 17:11:41 <sgk> yes
34 17:11:42 <GregNoel> That sounds good to me
35 17:11:45 <Jason_at_Intel> I thought this was about scanners?
36 17:11:58 <sgk> erk...
37 17:12:00 <sgk> you're right
38 17:12:04 <sgk> next one in the spreadsheet, 780
39 17:12:05 <sgk> sorry
40 17:12:16 <Jason_at_Intel> ahh
41 17:12:21 <Jason_at_Intel> so 780
42 17:12:31 <sgk> 1910 i don't think needs discussion
43 17:12:51 <sgk> unless someone's eager to pick up my partial fix and track down the last failing test case
44 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
45 17:13:01 <bdbaddog> can you detect that the builder didn't return a builder?
46 17:13:31 <bdbaddog> I mean that the callable didn't return a builder on it's first call?
47 17:13:58 <sgk> bdbaddog: you're right, we could do that; i didn't think of that
48 17:14:25 <sgk> I was too focused on making it happen at SConscript read time
49 17:14:32 <bdbaddog> every now and then a synapse fires..
50 17:14:38 <bdbaddog> :)
51 17:14:46 <sgk> ...or misfires... :-)
52 17:15:25 <bdbaddog> either way..
53 17:15:38 <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?
54 17:16:02 <sgk> okay, unless anyone objects, i'll take back the issue and try to finish that part of it
55 17:16:08 <GregNoel> done
56 17:16:15 <Jason_at_Intel> sounds good
57 17:16:26 <bdbaddog> +1
58 17:16:30 <sgk> onward...
59 17:16:30 <GregNoel> 2549?
60 17:16:39 <sgk> looks like consensus, wait for OP
61 17:16:53 <GregNoel> OK, bypass until next time
62 17:16:51 <Jason_at_Intel> so what about 1910?
63 17:17:22 <sgk> 1910: i uploaded a fix that's about 95% complete, but induces one regression
64 17:17:30 <sgk> it's reassigned to garyo 2.x p4
65 17:17:43 <sgk> he or anyone else can pick up and try to finish it
66 17:17:38 <GregNoel> 2552, consensus
67 17:18:05 <GregNoel> 2558, ditto
68 17:18:34 <sgk> 2558: i can go w/P3 so the OP gets some activity hopefully sooner than a P4
69 17:18:56 <GregNoel> I'm good with that
70 17:19:00 <bdbaddog> +1
71 17:19:03 <GregNoel> done
72 17:19:17 <sgk> 2562: consensus
73 17:19:20 <GregNoel> 2562, needs an owner
74 17:19:34 <bdbaddog> I'll take it
75 17:19:43 <GregNoel> done
76 17:19:55 <GregNoel> 2565
77 17:20:34 <bdbaddog> sounds like a doc only to me.
78 17:20:47 <sgk> 2565 feels like either a research thing, or else outright invalid
79 17:21:16 <sgk> research with an eye towards clarifying / expanding the doc
80 17:21:52 <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.
81 17:22:30 <GregNoel> It would have prevented the issue in the ML and then here.
82 17:20:40 <GregNoel> so 2565 is a small bit of editing, but needs someone who can take the time.
83 17:23:01 <Jason_at_Intel> +1
84 17:22:38 <bdbaddog> o.k. do we need to put sometihng in 1.3 docs indicating this will be changing in 2.0 ?
85 17:23:12 <bdbaddog> so env['SHCXXCOMSTR']='$CXXCOMSTR -shared_flag' ?
86 17:23:22 <GregNoel> It's not changing; that's the point.
87 17:23:49 <bdbaddog> oh.. o.k. I c read ur message wrong.
88 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
89 17:24:13 <GregNoel> Not in this issue, KISS
90 17:24:21 <bdbaddog> +1 doc only
91 17:24:30 <GregNoel> agree
92 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
93 17:25:13 <GregNoel> Not in this issue, open another issue if you want to think about it
94 17:25:24 <Jason_at_Intel> sure
95 17:26:03 <GregNoel> So, consensus for doc, but who and when?
96 17:27:15 <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.
97 17:28:34 <sgk> 2565: i'll take it
98 17:28:38 <sgk> 2.x p3?
99 17:28:53 <GregNoel> Sooner? 2.1 p3?
100 17:29:00 <sgk> okay, 2.1 p3
101 17:29:08 <GregNoel> done
102 17:29:19 <GregNoel> 2566
103 17:29:28 <sgk> 2566: consensus garyo more info from OP
104 17:29:37 <GregNoel> yep
105 17:29:49 <GregNoel> 2568
106 17:30:31 <GregNoel> Bill and Gary say 2.1 (in the wrong column)...
107 17:30:34 <sgk> it's pretty easy, i was thinking a regex to match an arbitrary number of / or \
108 17:30:51 <GregNoel> Or :?
109 17:31:15 <GregNoel> (separator for MacOS classic)
110 17:31:21 <sgk> heh
111 17:31:44 <sgk> just what we need, drop support for Python 1.5.2 while we add support for Mac OS 9
112 17:31:55 <GregNoel> {;-}
113 17:32:11 <GregNoel> I was just making the point that there could be other separators
114 17:32:28 <Jason_at_Intel> vms
115 17:31:25 <bdbaddog> os.pathsep ?
116 17:31:31 <bdbaddog> or os.dirsep?
117 17:31:42 <bdbaddog> I think python will give you the native character.
118 17:32:10 <sgk> right now it matches os.pathsep and explicit '/'
119 17:32:34 <sgk> sorry, os.sep, not os.pathsep
120 17:33:21 <sgk> give it to me, i'll knock it out quickly just to get it off the list
121 17:33:31 <GregNoel> OK, when?
122 17:33:33 <sgk> 2.1 p4?
123 17:33:38 <bdbaddog> +1
124 17:33:41 <GregNoel> done
125 17:34:11 <GregNoel> 2569, agree with Steven's comment
126 17:35:04 <GregNoel> If I knew what it was supposed to do, I could hack out a RE in a few minutes
127 17:35:45 <GregNoel> If someone writes a spec, I'll code it.
128 17:34:38 <sgk> 2569: Jason_at_intel, do .rc files behave like this issue implies?
129 17:34:55 <sgk> he's suggesting change the .rc scanner so it finds included files
130 17:35:06 <Jason_at_Intel> Have not used them for a while as they are replaced with a new format
131 17:36:16 <sgk> his RE is fine for matching any line of form
132 17:36:21 <sgk> KEYWORD KEYWORD "filename"
133 17:36:29 <sgk> the problem isn't lack of RE expertise
134 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
135 17:37:04 <GregNoel> 'I want "filename" to be part of the resource'
136 17:37:37 <bdbaddog> push back to the filer to point us at a URL where the file's speced?
137 17:38:11 <GregNoel> RE evaluation is in C; the algorithm looks at each character at most once, so it doesn't matter how complicated it is.
138 17:38:36 <GregNoel> Cost is O(strlen)
139 17:39:10 <sgk> GregNoel: ? what you say is all true, but i don't see the relevance
140 17:39:21 <bdbaddog> well we ahve a bit of time to decide on this, lets defer it ?
141 17:39:44 <GregNoel> bdbaddog, I won't disagree with that.
142 17:40:20 <bdbaddog> can we punt and goto 2570?
143 17:40:38 <GregNoel> 2570 is consensus, and it's the last one
144 17:40:28 <Jason_at_Intel> the issue is about a new pattern that look for "filename" or <filename>
145 17:40:52 <sgk> that old pattern matched both < and "
146 17:40:54 <bdbaddog> I"m not sure it's really a bug yet.
147 17:40:55 <Jason_at_Intel> I agree that i worry that "" has other meanings.. such as being a string constant
148 17:41:05 <sgk> his issue is that we have a hard-coded list of keywords in the old RE:
149 17:41:17 <sgk> ICON|BITMAP|CURSOR|HTML|FONT|MESSAGETABLE|TYPELIB|REGISTRY|D3DFX
150 17:41:29 <sgk> and he wants to be able to match other custom keywords like XAML
151 17:41:33 <Jason_at_Intel> and new ones like xaml are not supported
152 17:41:45 <sgk> so his RE no longer looks for explicit keyword like the old one
153 17:42:17 <sgk> but matches any keyword in the second argument
154 17:43:10 <sgk> research, me
155 17:43:21 <sgk> i can send it to a day-job .rc expert
156 17:43:34 <GregNoel> That makes sense. +1
157 17:43:49 <Jason_at_Intel> +1
158 17:44:10 <GregNoel> done
159 17:44:23 <GregNoel> That seems to be it for the issues. 1.3?
160 17:44:42 <sgk> bdbaddog, how's it going? anything you could use help on?
161 17:44:47 <bdbaddog> I think it's just 2570, checkpoint and then go?
162 17:45:01 <bdbaddog> I'm trying to figure out if 2570 is really a bug.
163 17:45:56 <sgk> k
164 17:45:56 <bdbaddog> if you create an environment with no tool= spec, then later (on windows) say Tool('msvc')(env)
165 17:46:09 <bdbaddog> will that reset the tool? I don't think so
166 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.
167 17:47:17 <bdbaddog> Just taking a little time to get an appropriate VM setup.
168 17:48:34 <bdbaddog> hoping to resolve it in the next few days and get another checkpoint out.
169 17:49:10 <GregNoel> (silence)
170 17:49:28 <sgk> sounds good to me
171 17:49:55 <sgk> anyone think we should push the checkpoint w/out 2570?
172 17:50:18 <GregNoel> I'd prefer not.
173 17:50:27 <sgk> agreed, just double-checking
174 17:50:36 <Jason_at_Intel> from what i know the layout shoudl not change with the finial release
175 17:50:57 <bdbaddog> k.
176 17:51:13 <Jason_at_Intel> so getting working now will help when 2010 is finally released
177 17:51:37 <sgk> cool
178 17:51:45 <sgk> any other 1.3-related topics or questions?
179 17:51:57 <GregNoel> Is that all? If so, while Steven and Bill are here, I have a couple of off-topic things.
180 17:53:16 <Jason_at_Intel> well I am going to take off.. have bugs to fix
181 17:53:28 <Jason_at_Intel> till next time!
182 17:53:31 <GregNoel> cul
183 17:53:39 <sgk> later, thnx
184 17:53:50 * Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458])
185 18:05:38 <bdbaddog> k. I"m off to the gym. starting to train for a triathlon.. :)
186 18:05:53 <sgk> good luck
187 18:06:27 <GregNoel> agreed
188 18:08:58 <sgk> okay, later
189 18:08:58 <sgk> thnx
190 18:09:00 <GregNoel> cul, bye
191 18:09:07 * sgk (~sgk@67.218.106.179) has left #scons
192 18:09:13 * GregNoel has been marked as being away
193 18:15:13 * loonycyborg has quit (Quit: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
194
