[Scons-users] Unreliable build problem

[Bill Deegan]

Tom,

Are you talking about this pull request?
https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/pull-requests/288/add-option-to-enable-checking-for-files/diff

-Bill

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <
ttanner2 at bloomberg.net> wrote:

> I actually ended up patching scons. There's a pull request on bitbucket
> for it which you might find helps. It doesn't have a noticeable effect on
> the build times.
>
> From: scons-users at scons.org At: 04/21/17 08:26:14
> To: scons-users at scons.org
> Subject: Re: [Scons-users] Unreliable build problem
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> That is certainly a possibility - not a common
> thing to do which would also
> explain why it happens fairly infrequently. Did you find a way of
> detecting/policing this or was it simply a case of education?
>
> Cheers,
>
> S.
>
> --
> From: Scons-users [mailto:scons-users-bounces at scons.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom Tanner
> Sent: 20 April 2017 13:47
> To: SCons users mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Scons-users] Unreliable build problem
>
> Is it possible people are reverting source files while
> doing the build? That
> caused us nightmares just like this.
>
> On 20/4/17 11:06, Hill, Steve (FP COM) wrote:
>
> Thanks for your response Bill.
>
> We are running on Windows 7. The build where we usually see this is our
> unit-test build (where a bunch of C/C++ files are
> compiled and linked, after
> which the executable is run and the build only passes if
> the executable returns
> 0) but that is probably down to that build being the most
> common build and the
> one where devs are more likely to revert changes. It
> is the .c->.obj step that
> is causing the problem.
>
> We have a couple of hundred developers building using
> SCons and this happens
> once every month or two so I'm not in the position to try
> and reproduce it with
> a small test case at the moment. I have one developer
> with one repo exhibiting
> the problem at the moment. I've updated him to 2.5.1 and
> the file still doesn't
> get rebuilt (so the build fails) but the issue could be
> to do with the database
> having got wrong information in it, in which case it is
> too late to upgrade the
> version of SCons!
>
> There is a sconsign command line tool for doing that.
>
> Is there anything online on how to run it?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> S.
>
> --
>
> Steve,
> There is a sconsign command line tool for doing that.
> Can you try the latest 2.5.1 and see if the problem still exists?
> 2.3.6 is fairly old.
> Also, what command line, platform?
> If you can provide a small test case to reproduce that would be helpful.
> It's possible this is a known bug.
>
> -Bill
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Hill, Steve (FP COM) <Stev
> e.Hill at cobham.com>
> wrote:
> We have started seeing occasional cases where a
> source file is reverted to a
> previous version and the object file is not rebuilt (
> so, typically, the link
> fails). We've tried changing the decider to various
> different ones but they all
> exhibit the same behaviour. Outputting the dependency
> tree shows that SCons
> thinks that the file is up-to-date. We are using SCons 2.3.
> 6 with Python 2.712.
>
> Is there any way to dig into SConsign to understand the problem better?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170421/ca56a754/attachment.html>