On 13.02.2014 21:43, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
Hey, it works for me too!
Okay, I created pull request #109, fixing this issue. Check and merge it
when you find the time...and don't stress yourself out on the 2.3.1
release. This is still supposed to feel like fun, not work. ;)
Dirk
Hey, it works for me too!
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On 12.02.2014 00:29, Dirk Bächle wrote:
[...]
This let's your simple testcase pass on my side...
Uppss, please replace with:
This lets...
:)
Dirk
I'll be out this coming week but will have connectivity. Probably can't
get 2.3.1 out but will try to integrate some pull requests, and get the
GSoC stuff going. Someone please sign up so I can make you a backup admin!
We can replace you later, but I need an alternate for today.
On Thu, Feb
Hi Gary,
On 02.02.2014 23:13, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
HA -- got a small repro testcase!
[...]
Run that twice as scons all-defuns.obj. The second time _shouldn't_
rebuild anything, but it will re-run the Copy command. SCons 2.3.0
correctly doesn't do anything the second time.
looks
On 12.02.2014 00:29, Dirk Bächle wrote:
[...]
This let's your simple testcase pass on my side...
Uppss, please replace with:
This lets...
:)
Dirk
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
Well, my smaller test case with just the important files works fine so
far. It's probably just _too_ small. But in the meantime I have a more
complete understanding of what's happening.
I traced through the taskmaster as all this is happening.
Note that in Taskmaster-speak, considering is
HA -- got a small repro testcase!
SConstruct: --
# This tests the too-many-rebuilds problem with SCons 2.3.1 (test)
# Run like this: scons all-defuns.obj
# Test setup (only runs once)
import os.path
if not os.path.exists('mkl'):
os.mkdir('mkl')
if not
On 02.02.2014 23:13, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
HA -- got a small repro testcase!
[...]
Dirk, I guess the ball's in your court! :-) Of course I want to keep
helping to solve it but at least you and interested others (hi
Roberto!) can give it a try.
Thanks a lot for the testcase. I'll have
[mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On
Behalf Of Gary Oberbrunner
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 23:57
To: Dirk Baechle; SCons developer list
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] please try latest default branch
More results, no fix yet.
The generated file all-defuns.c I mentioned before is definitely part
On 28.01.2014 23:57, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
More results, no fix yet.
The generated file all-defuns.c I mentioned before is definitely part
of the problem. I back-ported the tracing code I wrote to just before
Dirk's memory optimization. In that version, near the beginning of
the build
I'm continuing to track this down. No solid results so far (but I'm
adding lots of tracing code). I have a generated source file,
all-defuns.c, that depends (using Depends) on a dir (mkl), and it
seems like with the new code while the taskmaster is checking
all-defuns.obj it checks all-defuns.c,
OK, I'll try that. I guess the approach should be to set a new (temporary)
flag in the node when its executor is released, and then print a stack
trace if any node with that flag set gets its changed() method called?
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On
Dirk, and others: I tracked down my spurious rebuild to the addition of
caching changed-status in File.changed() in Node/FS.py. If I remove that
caching code I don't get the rebuilds:
diff --git a/src/engine/SCons/Node/FS.py b/src/engine/SCons/Node/FS.py
--- a/src/engine/SCons/Node/FS.py
+++
On 13.01.2014 20:18, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
Dirk, and others: I tracked down my spurious rebuild to the addition
of caching changed-status in File.changed() in Node/FS.py. If I
remove that caching code I don't get the rebuilds:
diff --git a/src/engine/SCons/Node/FS.py
the problems found by Gary.
Bye
Roberto
-Original Message-
From: scons-dev-boun...@scons.org [mailto:scons-dev-
boun...@scons.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bächle
Sent: venerdì 10 gennaio 2014 09:10
To: SCons developer list
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] please try latest default branch
Baechle; SCons developer list
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] please try latest default branch
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Dirk Bächle
tshor...@gmx.demailto:tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On 09.01.2014 21:16, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Dirk Bächle
tshor...@gmx.demailto:tshor
] please try latest default branch
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On 09.01.2014 21:16, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On 09.01.2014 14:55, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
I'm also getting some
On 10.01.2014 18:46, Kenny, Jason L wrote:
I have the same issue with the build at my job. I thought it might
have been bug in Parts passing data around, a badly define build files
that dependson stuff differently if something exists on disk or not (
ie something that is built). However I
I have seen this since SCons 2.0
Jason
From: scons-dev-boun...@scons.org [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On
Behalf Of Gary Oberbrunner
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:01 PM
To: SCons Dev List
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] please try latest default branch
Are you saying 2.3.0 was fine
So to answer the question Yes we do. In fact we have two cases:
1) Header generation ( this is done via the Parts call to PythonScript()
which is a builder I added to call a python file given two functions, one for
emitting what it will do and one to do the work). This is not an issue as
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Kenny, Jason L jason.l.ke...@intel.comwrote:
I have seen this since SCons 2.0
OK, so it's not a regression caused by the 2.3.0 changes. Good to know.
--
Gary
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
I'm also getting some spurious rebuilds with 2.3.1 compared with 2.3.0.
Will dig into it. Dirk, I'm not sure if it's your patch or something else
that changed.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Roberto,
On 08.01.2014 22:52, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
On 09.01.2014 14:55, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
I'm also getting some spurious rebuilds with 2.3.1 compared with
2.3.0. Will dig into it. Dirk, I'm not sure if it's your patch or
something else that changed.
Gary,
I created a pull request, switching off the memory savings for the
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On 09.01.2014 14:55, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
I'm also getting some spurious rebuilds with 2.3.1 compared with 2.3.0.
Will dig into it. Dirk, I'm not sure if it's your patch or something else
that changed.
Gary,
I
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On 09.01.2014 21:16, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On 09.01.2014 14:55, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
I'm also getting some spurious rebuilds with 2.3.1 compared with
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Gary Oberbrunner ga...@oberbrunner.com wrote:
This version has a significant memory optimization patch due to Dirk.
Please try it on your real projects and let me know if it has any problems.
(And ideally if you can measure memory use, if it helps with that
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
On 08.01.2014 22:52, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
If you can confirm the small change makes sense, I’ll let some of our
developer test more in detail this configuration.
It makes sense to me, but Dirk will have to have a say.
From: scons-dev-boun...@scons.org [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On
Behalf Of Gary Oberbrunner
Sent: domenica 29 dicembre 2013 13:30
To: SCons Dev List
Subject: [Scons-dev] please try latest default branch
This version has a significant memory optimization patch due to Dirk.
Please try
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM, roberto de vecchi
roberto.devec...@vi-grade.com wrote:
I tried upgrading our company build engine including the latest default
branch and for std build it seems to work properly: the memory consumption
is reduced compared to the standard version. Unfortunately
From: scons-dev-boun...@scons.org [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On
Behalf Of Gary Oberbrunner
Sent: mercoledì 8 gennaio 2014 19:52
To: SCons developer list
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] please try latest default branch
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM, roberto de vecchi
roberto.devec...@vi
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:49 PM, roberto de vecchi
roberto.devec...@vi-grade.com wrote:
Gary,
I think that the problem I’m seeing is generated by the modification in
FS.py around line 3052:
...
removing the reset of self.cwd things look much better and I can build
correctly with
Hi Roberto,
On 08.01.2014 22:52, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:49 PM, roberto de vecchi
roberto.devec...@vi-grade.com mailto:roberto.devec...@vi-grade.com
wrote:
Gary,
I think that the problem I'm seeing is generated by the
modification in FS.py around line
Ok! Ill keep you posted!
Cheers
Roberto
From: scons-dev-boun...@scons.org [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On
Behalf Of Dirk Bächle
Sent: giovedì 9 gennaio 2014 00:31
To: scons-dev@scons.org
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] please try latest default branch
Hi Roberto,
On 08.01.2014
This version has a significant memory optimization patch due to Dirk.
Please try it on your real projects and let me know if it has any
problems. (And ideally if you can measure memory use, if it helps with
that too).
--
Gary
___
Scons-dev mailing
34 matches
Mail list logo
