On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) <ajw...@chromium.org>wrote:
> I actually got some weird warnings on the make build a while back when I > specified the same file in two sources entries...something about circular > dependencies and make ignore one. But don't remember the exact scenario. > > I betcha it isn't a problem in chrome cause it'd only trigger a bug if the > file was compiled with different flags that modified behavior. Since our > defines and compiler options are so stable (especially within one target), > building once probably doesn't break stuff... > > -Albert > I found one occurrence of it when building with shared libs. protobuf and protobuf_lite both try to compile the same file (but with the same options), and protobuf depends on lite, which effectively makes that file depend on itself. I'm fixing a few things around that so I'll fix that one. But that's the only case I know where we're trying to build the same file twice (except with the new host/target thing for cross-compiles). Antoine > > 2009/10/28 Bradley Nelson <bradnel...@google.com> > >> Updating the public instructions would be helpful! Please proceed. >> I'd be willing do the buildbot switchover, unless someone is more eager. >> I'm a little surprised that the failing test doesn't hork something in the >> chromium build. >> I known that there are some shared files like that (though it may be only >> on windows come to think of it). >> >> -BradN >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) < >> ajw...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> I ran into that yesterday as well trying to make a make generator fix. I >>> think I'll hang on until mmoss gets back since I heard he's in the middle of >>> trying to fix that. But assuming the unittest can all be made green, then >>> it's update the public instructions, and finally buildbot work? >>> >>> I can pickup on fixing the public instructions if no one objects. I >>> don't think that needs to be blocked on the unittests, and might as well >>> allow it to propagate out to the casual developers like while we get our >>> ducks in line. >>> >>> -Albert >>> >>> >>> 2009/10/28 Bradley Nelson <bradnel...@google.com> >>> >>>> Looks like the failures are part of the same test case. >>>> It's the case where the same source file is built as part of two >>>> different targets using different defines. >>>> The make generator appears to build it only one way and use it in both >>>> targets. >>>> >>>> -BradN >>>> >>>> 2009/10/28 Bradley Nelson <bradnel...@google.com> >>>> >>>> So we have set of tests for gyp which are green for all the generators >>>>> other than make. >>>>> I believe mmoss has been whittling away on them, and I think its down >>>>> to just 2 failures. >>>>> go/gypbot >>>>> After that its just a matter of the will to switch over the buildbots >>>>> and fix any unforeseen issues. >>>>> >>>>> -BradN >>>>> >>>>> 2009/10/28 Lei Zhang <thes...@chromium.org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> mmoss has been working on the make gyp generator, maybe he has a >>>>>> better feel for what's keeping us from switching. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) >>>>>> <ajw...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel < >>>>>> mar...@chromium.org> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Not that it is effective :) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Starred. :) >>>>>> > Now what? >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel < >>>>>> mar...@chromium.org> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> > Have you tried starring http://crbug.com/22044 ? >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) >>>>>> >> > <ajw...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> >> >> If I'm not mistaken, I think like most everyone running on linux >>>>>> is >>>>>> >> >> using >>>>>> >> >> the make build nowadays, and the make build seems to work well >>>>>> enough >>>>>> >> >> for >>>>>> >> >> most people. The only time I hear someone mention the scons >>>>>> build, >>>>>> >> >> it's in >>>>>> >> >> reference to "you broke the scons build," or "so you developed >>>>>> on make. >>>>>> >> >> Did >>>>>> >> >> you check it worked on scons?" >>>>>> >> >> Given that, what's keeping us from killing the scons build >>>>>> completely? >>>>>> >> >> My current motivation for asking is that I've been spending the >>>>>> last >>>>>> >> >> hour >>>>>> >> >> trying to figure out why scons is deciding to insert an -fPIC >>>>>> into my >>>>>> >> >> build, >>>>>> >> >> whereas make is not. This is on top of my previous motivation >>>>>> (from >>>>>> >> >> about 3 >>>>>> >> >> days ago) where I spent another few hours making something that >>>>>> worked >>>>>> >> >> fine >>>>>> >> >> on the make build, scons compatible. I'd rather spend that time >>>>>> >> >> killing >>>>>> >> >> scons if there was a clear list of what was needed to make that >>>>>> happen. >>>>>> >> >> -Albert >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
