On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 9:37:12 AM UTC+2, Simon Sapin wrote:
> On 23/08/2019 04:00, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I had a similar experience on a 36-core machine earlier today. It seems
> > incremental is not working properly for the style crate: incremental is
> > supposed to have the same effect a
Here is my own answer to clean up the mess of version mismatches, etc.
I did the following.
1. I removed ~/.mozbuild and ~/.cargo directory and
re-ran |make bootstrap|.
(I am not sure if removing ~/.cargo directory was a good idea.)
2. I revered my local changes before I update the M-C and C-C
A fix for this (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576030)
should be on m-c shortly, no need to tweak mozconfigs.
-e
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:45 AM Nicholas Alexander
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:11 AM ishikawa wrote:
>
> > On 2019/08/23 11:00, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:11 AM ishikawa wrote:
> On 2019/08/23 11:00, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >
> > In the meanwhile, as discussed on irc, it seems fair to disable
> > CARGO_INCREMENTAL when building with sccache.
>
> So how can we disable this?
> Setting environment variable as in the following?
>
On 2019/08/23 11:00, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> In the meanwhile, as discussed on irc, it seems fair to disable
> CARGO_INCREMENTAL when building with sccache.
So how can we disable this?
Setting environment variable as in the following?
export CARGO_INCREMENTAL=
___
On 23/08/2019 04:00, Mike Hommey wrote:
I had a similar experience on a 36-core machine earlier today. It seems
incremental is not working properly for the style crate: incremental is
supposed to have the same effect as sccache, but it still takes a long
time to compile style. I'm told mw is goin
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 06:48:03PM -0700, Chris M. wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:32 PM Kris Maglione
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:23:06PM +0900, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote:
> > >On 2019/08/20 9:11, Dave Townsend wrote:
> > >>Thanks to a tip I've tracked this down. This seems to only
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:32 PM Kris Maglione
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:23:06PM +0900, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote:
> >On 2019/08/20 9:11, Dave Townsend wrote:
> >>Thanks to a tip I've tracked this down. This seems to only be the case
> when
> >>I have sccache enabled. Disabling it gives me
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:33 PM Markus Stange wrote:
> On 2019-08-19 8:11 p.m., Dave Townsend wrote:
> > Thanks to a tip I've tracked this down. This seems to only be the case
> when
> > I have sccache enabled. Disabling it gives me nice quick incremental
> builds
> > again.
>
> What's your scca
On 22/08/2019 03:42, ISHIKAWA, Chiaki wrote:
At the same time, I have a feeling that the debug symbol that rustc
generates may be a tad bigger than I would like it to be, but I need to
investigate more about this.
Sounds like this known bug of rustc:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/560
Well, I have a problem now after trying to update sccache just in case I
need a new version in the future.
I did the following:
cargo install --force sccache
(I was not so sure of what the proper update procedure of already
installed package. sccache 2.0.8-alpha-something was already installe
On 2019/08/21 3:52, Eric Rahm wrote:
mach clobber --full
Thank you for the tips.
I will try this.
At the same time, I have a feeling that the debug symbol that rustc
generates may be a tad bigger than I would like it to be, but I need to
investigate more about this.
Chiaki
___
On 2019-08-19 8:11 p.m., Dave Townsend wrote:
Thanks to a tip I've tracked this down. This seems to only be the case when
I have sccache enabled. Disabling it gives me nice quick incremental builds
again.
What's your sccache version? I think you may be hitting the following
sccache bug which h
You can use |mach clobber --full| to remove the incremental cache. It might
be worth filing a bug for the large size, my best guess is that we're
keeping around items from old compiler versions. It's possible we could do
a full clobber of the IC when we detect a new compiler version, but that
might
On 2019/08/20 14:32, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:23:06PM +0900, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote:
On 2019/08/20 9:11, Dave Townsend wrote:
Thanks to a tip I've tracked this down. This seems to only be the
case when
I have sccache enabled. Disabling it gives me nice quick incremental
b
Hi all,
I'm not sure whether Thunderbirds are different, but the issue is that
(on Windows) xul.dll is constantly relinked although there haven't been
any changes to C++ or RS files. Log below.
Oh, you can also see some ugly hunspell warnings that have crept in a
while ago.
Jörg.
$ mach b
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:23:06PM +0900, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote:
On 2019/08/20 9:11, Dave Townsend wrote:
Thanks to a tip I've tracked this down. This seems to only be the case when
I have sccache enabled. Disabling it gives me nice quick incremental builds
again. Of course that isn't an ideal s
On 2019/08/20 9:11, Dave Townsend wrote:
Thanks to a tip I've tracked this down. This seems to only be the case when
I have sccache enabled. Disabling it gives me nice quick incremental builds
again. Of course that isn't an ideal solution but it will do for now.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 1:55 PM D
Is this https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1427313 ?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 5:27 PM Kris Maglione wrote:
> This is apparently a known bug that no-one seems to be able to
> track down the cause of. It suddenly started happening to me one
> night for every build, even if I changed nothi
This is apparently a known bug that no-one seems to be able to
track down the cause of. It suddenly started happening to me one
night for every build, even if I changed nothing. Then, just as
suddenly, stopped happening after a couple of hours.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:11:19PM -0700, Dave To
Thanks to a tip I've tracked this down. This seems to only be the case when
I have sccache enabled. Disabling it gives me nice quick incremental builds
again. Of course that isn't an ideal solution but it will do for now.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 1:55 PM Dave Townsend wrote:
> For a couple of wee
On 20/08/2019 00:20, Simon Sapin wrote:
It would be good to have steps to reproduce the issue. Then Cargo’s
debug logs should show what it thinks is out of date.
Running with a CARGO_LOG=cargo::core::compiler::fingerprint environment
variable should show some relevant information.
--
Simon S
On 19/08/2019 22:55, Dave Townsend wrote:
For a couple of weeks now I've seen that any attempt to build Firefox, even
incremental builds seem to rebuild an awful lot of rust code. I found this
in the source which seems to suggest why:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/config/makefiles/
23 matches
Mail list logo
