[Scons-users] timing issues and protecting from them

William Blevins wblevins001 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 10:18:33 EST 2015

I don't see this as a solvable problem in a dynamical system because
<Dirk's comments here>.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> On 09.12.2015 14:15, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) wrote:
>> The problem is not in the generated file. It's in the source file.
>> It's fine to change a source file outside scons (I hope). Just doing it
>> while a build is in process is opening you up to race hazards.
> but your approach of checking the timestamps of source files (or their MD5
> sums, or anything else) won't be able to guarantee a self-consistent and
> correct build either:
> Let's say we have a target (library) Z, which depends on several sources
> A, B, C, D. So, after Z is built() you start to loop through the source
> dependencies in their lexicographical order. This checking will take time,
> and even if the single checks are relatively fast, it can still happen that
> you're currently checking C (with D still to go) and suddenly someone
> changes A from the outside. Then you get the same problem as before, an
> inconsistent state of timestamps vs hash.
> Note how this problem is independent of which order you choose for
> processing the single children. You simply don't know the "correct" order
> beforehand...the one that you'd have to use for traversing the graph, such
> that the final modification happens before checking the corresponding
> source again.
> So, from my perspective it looks as if guaranteeing that the build is
> self-consistent and correct, while allowing modifications from the outside,
> is impossible to do. What your approach definitely delivers is a slighter
> chance for a mishap like this...but I'm frankly more interested in
> solutions that give us the full 100% all the time (including parallel
> builds, which we haven't even touched yet ;)) instead of a 99.997% (I
> totally made that number up, but you get the idea).
> Best regards,
> Dirk
> From: wblevins001 at gmail.com At: Dec 9 2015 09:58:20
>> To: Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <mailto:ttanner2 at bloomberg.net>,
>> scons-users at scons.org <mailto:scons-users at scons.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Scons-users] timing issues and protecting from them
>>     Read inline comments.
>>     On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <
>> ttanner2 at bloomberg.net <mailto:ttanner2 at bloomberg.net>> wrote:
>>         No. I'm implying it should happen at the time it does the build.
>> Not during subsequent runs.
>>         The situation we got into is:
>>         timestamp in scons.dblite matches current timestamp of file
>>         md5 in scons.dblite doesn't match current md5 of file
>>         We have a somewhat paranoid decider function which checks for
>> mismatchming md5s but that doesn't trigger if the timestamp
>>         hasn't changed (as otherwise it would be very slow).
>>         So the check I'm thinking of is something like in the .built
>> function
>>         if database timestamp of source dependency != actual timestamp of
>> source dependency:
>>         raise builderror (str(source) + ' changed during build')
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20151209/9c56ca3e/attachment.html>

More information about the Scons-users mailing list