[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
To follow up on this thread, for people who didn't see the related gyp-developer discussion, I submitted the last make fix for the gyp tests today. This was my minimum sanity check before switching any buildbots over to make. I might start with some FYI bots this weekend, then do the main bots next week, though I'll probably wait on that until I have a chance to check on Evan's compile twice issue and get a test case for it. Michael On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) ajw...@chromium.org wrote: I've updated the LinuxBuildInstructions, and moved the old instructions to LinuxSconsBuild which parallels LinuxMakeBuild. I also made a quick attempt at searching for scons in both the Wiki and the Sites pages and updated whatever looked appropriate. Step #1 down. -Albert On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Antoine Labour pi...@google.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote: 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... Currently, as far as I know, no files in Chrome require this compile twice behavior. I am skeptical of the utility of gyp features that are unused by Chrome. But this may be the magic bullet to make -fPIC on 64-bit work. I think I still see situations where the generated strings aren't properly rebuilt in the make build. You have to run it twice. At this point, given the number of people hammering on it, I suspect the gyp rules are wrong and that the make build parallelizes too aggressively, but that is likely just wishful thinking and there's a subtle bug in there. :( That means for the build bots to switch, they need to always run make twice to be sure everything was built. (PS: currently every time you run make it rebuilds some NACL stuff too. I am so tired of NACL busting my build that I just turned it off locally.) That was a regression that I think I fixed. Antoine --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
Not that it is effective :) 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.orgwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit! -Ben On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) ajw...@chromium.orgwrote: On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.orgwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
FWIW, I build with scons. I only build Linux once a month or so, and the default build instructions told me to use scons. I'd imagine lots of people who are just playing with chrome on the side use scons too. On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:28 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
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.orgwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
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 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
Yeah, that's about it. It's definitely time to make this switch. After the gyp tests for make are green, it just needs someone with the right buidlbot knowledge + time to work out the details. (Last time I did a comparison of the make vs. scons build output there were still some differences in the built files, some missing, a few different locations, etc., but that was a long time ago now. There'll still probably be some minor shakeout, but nothing insurmountable.) --SK On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) ajw...@chromium.orgwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
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... Currently, as far as I know, no files in Chrome require this compile twice behavior. I am skeptical of the utility of gyp features that are unused by Chrome. But this may be the magic bullet to make -fPIC on 64-bit work. I think I still see situations where the generated strings aren't properly rebuilt in the make build. You have to run it twice. At this point, given the number of people hammering on it, I suspect the gyp rules are wrong and that the make build parallelizes too aggressively, but that is likely just wishful thinking and there's a subtle bug in there. :( That means for the build bots to switch, they need to always run make twice to be sure everything was built. (PS: currently every time you run make it rebuilds some NACL stuff too. I am so tired of NACL busting my build that I just turned it off locally.) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) ajw...@chromium.orgwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: How can we kill scons?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote: 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... Currently, as far as I know, no files in Chrome require this compile twice behavior. I am skeptical of the utility of gyp features that are unused by Chrome. But this may be the magic bullet to make -fPIC on 64-bit work. I think I still see situations where the generated strings aren't properly rebuilt in the make build. You have to run it twice. At this point, given the number of people hammering on it, I suspect the gyp rules are wrong and that the make build parallelizes too aggressively, but that is likely just wishful thinking and there's a subtle bug in there. :( That means for the build bots to switch, they need to always run make twice to be sure everything was built. (PS: currently every time you run make it rebuilds some NACL stuff too. I am so tired of NACL busting my build that I just turned it off locally.) That was a regression that I think I fixed. Antoine --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
