[Scons-users] Unreliable build problem

Fri Apr 21 14:27:22 EDT 2017

Yes

On 21/4/17 17:19, Bill Deegan wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:scons-users at scons.org> At:
>     04/21/17 08:26:14
>     To: scons-users at scons.orgSubject: 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
>         <mailto:scons-users-bounces at scons.org>] On
>         Behalf Of Tom TannerSent: 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) <Steve.Hill at cobham.com
>         <mailto:Steve.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
>         <mailto:Scons-users at scons.org>
>         https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>         <https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Scons-users mailing list Scons-users at scons.org
>         <mailto:Scons-users at scons.org>
>         https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>         <https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users>
>         ----------------------------_______________________________________________
>         Scons-users mailing list Scons-users at scons.org
>         <mailto:Scons-users at scons.org>
>         https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>         <https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users> 
>
>     _______________________________________________ Scons-users
>     mailing list Scons-users at scons.org <mailto:Scons-users at scons.org>
>     https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>     <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/20170421/920a2dae/attachment-0001.html>