I get the following error when running gcl upload when it tries to send the
job to try server after successfully uploading files:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File C:\Tools\depot_tools\gcl.py, line 1273, in ?
sys.exit(main())
File C:\Tools\depot_tools\gcl.py, line 1244, in main
A guess, but it looks like it's attempting to find your email address
out of your SVN authorization data, and that the computer you're on
has no SVN auth data. Try something like svn ls
--username=mycommitern...@chromium.org svn://... and log in if it
prompts you.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:46
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 7:21 AM, rahul rahulsin...@gmail.com wrote:
I happen to find this warning very useful, just as I find our policy
to make warnings hard errors in our own code helpful.
Yes, of course. That's a good practice. But what about the end-users
who have to deal with warnings as
Just in case anyone else hit this, it was fixed in 32748.
-Munjal
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
A guess, but it looks like it's attempting to find your email address
out of your SVN authorization data, and that the computer you're on
has no SVN auth
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@chromium.org wrote:
Can anyone explain (or point me at some docs) for how the
gcPrologue/gcEpilogue stuff should work, wrt the state of the underlying
handles (what assumptions does that code make)? I guess I don't really
understand when
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
I have been particularly frustrated with gcc warning bugs that have
been fixed in newer versions of gcc. In older gccs, the following
code produces a variable may be used uninitialized warning depending
on your
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
There is another fix, which is to disable to warning within the file or
globally for GCC versions less than X. GCC exposes a number of different
macros and switches that let you determine the version precisely either
On Nov 21, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
Can anyone explain (or point me at some docs) for how the
gcPrologue/gcEpilogue stuff should work, wrt the state of the underlying
handles (what assumptions does that code make)? I guess I don't really
understand when objects are taken out
On Nov 21, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
We should whitelist known compiler versions that build successfully
with -Werror, and then turn it off for the rest.
I did something in this spirit, though in kludgy form, a few weeks ago. After I
fixed all the current GCC warnings in WebCore,
On Nov 22, 12:51 am, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
You did note that we're in the process of enforcing precisely what you want
enforced, right?
PK
Yes. In the last post, I didn't see the codereview and was thinking
that there still isn't consensus. Just saw the review now.
--
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Jens Alfke s...@google.com wrote:
Disclaimer: This code is fairly nasty and even though I've messed with it for
a month or two I don't feel that I fully understand it, especially the map.
(I think the map code needs a redesign at some point: for example, it
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
This works for warnings we know about now, but not warnings that will
occur in the future, which is the larger problem.
I'd say we break the automated Ubuntu builds every couple of weeks
(and get an additional report from
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 7:21 AM, rahul rahulsin...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry about the late reply(I am in a different timezone and when my
comment didn't appear after 12 hours of submission, I thought it had
been pruned).
@Eric Roman
What class do you get this error on?
I actually got fed up
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
This works for warnings we know about now, but not warnings that will
occur in the future, which is the larger problem.
I'd say we break the
Thanks, when I replied to Munjal, I only replied to him by error.
So the fix is to run gclient.
M-A
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Munjal Doshi mun...@chromium.org wrote:
Just in case anyone else hit this, it was fixed in 32748.
-Munjal
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Evan Martin
[+chromium-dev]
One issue is that even a smoke test wouldn't have caught this problem
since as I said, it was windows specific. Maybe it's time to create a
try server for depot_tools. :/
M-A
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@google.com wrote:
I totally agree, I fully
I guess I don't really understand why gcPrologue has that
ASSERT(wrapper.IsWeak()) then, unless there's something in the DOMMap code
that is removing objects from the map when they transition to PENDING.
Anyhow, it sounds like it's safe to do something like the following in the
epilogue:
if
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 12:06 -0800, Evan Martin wrote:
I'd say we break the automated Ubuntu builds every couple of weeks
(and get an additional report from users at about that same rate).
I don't mind when my automated daily builds break once in a while, but
when the same error stays there for
Since I did this upgrade my builds have gotten very very slow. A single file
change, recompile and relink used to be about 35 seconds. Now it's 2 and a
half minutes. As far as I can tell I'm using the right gold.
davemo...@dmoorel:~/chrome/src$ ld --version
GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.20) 1.9
Are
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Fabien Tassin f...@sofaraway.org wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 12:06 -0800, Evan Martin wrote:
I'd say we break the automated Ubuntu builds every couple of weeks
(and get an additional report from users at about that same rate).
I don't mind when my
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:24 PM, David Moore davemo...@google.com wrote:
Since I did this upgrade my builds have gotten very very slow. A single
file change, recompile and relink used to be about 35 seconds. Now it's 2
and a half minutes. As far as I can tell I'm using the right gold.
I checked and I compiled with -O2. I see a similar slowdown in the ar calls.
I also notice that the size of the chrome executable is now 2GB. I think
before the size was closer to 350MB. It was 750MB if you included webkit
symbols. Perhaps something changed about the way we're managing symbols.
I have a change out that might make this less flaky. Hopefully.
http://codereview.chromium.org/427005
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Tim Steele t...@chromium.org wrote:
This happened several times (at least 6) throughout the day, alternating
with successful passes.
It seems bad (as in an
23 matches
Mail list logo
