[Scons-users] 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： Ninja compilation fails after using include path file instead of "-I" option
Daniel Moody
dmoody256 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 16 13:53:12 EDT 2022
Also i realized that link_objects.txt is probably not meant for the object
builders. I assume this file is intended for linking the libraries and
programs? In that case you will want a scanner for those builders instead.
Do you have error messages you can show, it should help to see what your
issue is.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:58 AM Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>
wrote:
> try bzip'ing the ninja.build file. That should make it considerably
> smaller.
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 4:37 PM liruncong2018 via Scons-users <
> scons-users at scons.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Still the same problem. I want to send "build.ninja" as an attachment,
>> but the email always bounces, what information can I print so I can find
>> the problem?
>>
>> ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
>> *发件人:* "Daniel Moody" <dmoody256 at gmail.com>;
>> *发送时间:* 2022年4月16日(星期六) 凌晨0:29
>> *收件人:* "liruncong2018"<liruncong2018 at qq.com>;
>> *抄送:* "SCons users mailing list"<scons-users at scons.org>;
>> *主题:* Re: [Scons-users] 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： Ninja compilation fails
>> after using include path file instead of "-I" option
>>
>> Here's the same code but better color scheme:
>>
>> incPathsFile = env.Textfile(
>> "build/__cpp_path.txt",
>> cppPathStr
>> )
>>
>> defineOptsFile = env.Textfile(
>> "build/__define_options.txt",
>> "\n".join(rtconfig.rtconfigObj.DefineOptions)
>> )
>>
>> linkObjsFile = env.Textfile(
>> "build/__link_objects.txt",
>> "\n".join(objsList)
>> )
>>
>> def _add_scanner(builder):
>> def new_scanner(node, env, path):
>> return incPathsFile + defineOptsFile + linkObjsFile
>>
>> builder.builder.target_scanner = SCons.Scanner.Scanner(
>> function=new_scanner,
>> path_function=[],
>> )
>> for object_builder in SCons.Tool.createObjBuilders(env):
>> _add_scanner(object_builder)
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:50 AM Daniel Moody <dmoody256 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hello liruncong,
>>>
>>> If you want to add multiple @file dependencies via the scanner do them
>>> all in the same scanner. Like I said you can only apply one scanner, so in
>>> this case you are overwriting each previous scanner. The scanner should
>>> return a list of files in which to set dependencies for the current node.
>>>
>>> The path function is not used in this case, and I just left the CPPPATH
>>> from the default SourceFileScanner I copied the scanner code from. It does
>>> have to be something besides None I believe though, or scons won't scan.
>>> The correct way this should be used in this case is you should place the
>>> @file in a known list of directories or just a single directory, and then
>>> pass a list of directories or a list containing the single directory, and
>>> the scanner should find the files by extension in the list of directories.
>>> This is the fundamental working of scanners if you want to read more:
>>> https://scons.org/doc/production/HTML/scons-user/ch20.html, however you
>>> could also use a dummy list if there is no dynamic component here.
>>>
>>> Here is an updated example based on the new info you provided:
>>>
>>> incPathsFile = env.Textfile(
>>> "build/__cpp_path.txt",
>>> cppPathStr
>>> )
>>>
>>> defineOptsFile = env.Textfile(
>>> "build/__define_options.txt",
>>> "\n".join(rtconfig.rtconfigObj.DefineOptions)
>>> )
>>>
>>> linkObjsFile = env.Textfile(
>>> "build/__link_objects.txt",
>>> "\n".join(objsList)
>>> )
>>>
>>> def _add_scanner(builder):
>>> def new_scanner(node, env, path):
>>> return incPathsFile + defineOptsFile + linkObjsFile
>>>
>>> builder.builder.target_scanner = SCons.Scanner.Scanner(
>>> function=new_scanner,
>>> path_function=[],
>>> )
>>> for object_builder in SCons.Tool.createObjBuilders(env):
>>> _add_scanner(object_builder)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 9:58 AM liruncong2018 <liruncong2018 at qq.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you give me more information? What source file? Does the
>>>> compilation fail the first time? Does it recompile successfully with only
>>>> scons building? Can you push your latest code so I can see it in your repo?
>>>> -- I don't know how to reproduce this problem in the git test project,
>>>> I will try to see if it can be reproduced.
>>>> Also each builder can only hold one target or source scanner, but you
>>>> can chain the scanner by calling other scanners from within the single
>>>> scanner. Are you assigning multiple scanners to the same builder?
>>>> -- The following are some scanners, I don't quite understand the
>>>> path_function, especially the second parameter of the last scanner
>>>> (linkObjsFile).
>>>> ————————————————————————————————————————
>>>> incPathsFile = env.Textfile(
>>>> "build/__cpp_path.txt",
>>>> cppPathStr
>>>> )
>>>> def _add_scanner(builder):
>>>> def new_scanner(node, env, path):
>>>> return incPathsFile
>>>>
>>>> builder.builder.target_scanner = SCons.Scanner.Scanner(
>>>> function=new_scanner,
>>>> path_function=SCons.Script.FindPathDirs('CPPPATH'),
>>>> )
>>>> for object_builder in SCons.Tool.createObjBuilders(env):
>>>> _add_scanner(object_builder)
>>>>
>>>> defineOptsFile = env.Textfile(
>>>> "build/__define_options.txt",
>>>> "\n".join(rtconfig.rtconfigObj.DefineOptions)
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>> def _add_scanner(builder):
>>>> def new_scanner(node, env, path):
>>>> return defineOptsFile
>>>>
>>>> builder.builder.target_scanner = SCons.Scanner.Scanner(
>>>> function=new_scanner,
>>>> path_function=SCons.Script.FindPathDirs('CPPPATH'),
>>>> )
>>>> for object_builder in SCons.Tool.createObjBuilders(env):
>>>> _add_scanner(object_builder)
>>>>
>>>> linkObjsFile = env.Textfile(
>>>> "build/__link_objects.txt",
>>>> "\n".join(objsList)
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>> def _add_scanner(builder):
>>>> def new_scanner(node, env, path):
>>>> return linkObjsFile
>>>>
>>>> builder.builder.target_scanner = SCons.Scanner.Scanner(
>>>> function=new_scanner,
>>>> path_function=SCons.Script.FindPathDirs('LIBPATH'),
>>>> )
>>>> for object_builder in SCons.Tool.createObjBuilders(env):
>>>> _add_scanner(object_builder)
>>>> ————————————————————————————————————————————————
>>>> ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
>>>> *发件人:* "Daniel Moody" <dmoody256 at gmail.com>;
>>>> *发送时间:* 2022年4月14日(星期四) 晚上11:36
>>>> *收件人:* "liruncong2018"<liruncong2018 at qq.com>;
>>>> *抄送:* "SCons users mailing list"<scons-users at scons.org>;
>>>> *主题:* Re: [Scons-users] 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： Ninja compilation fails
>>>> after using include path file instead of "-I" option
>>>>
>>>> Can you give me more information? What source file? Does the
>>>> compilation fail the first time? Does it recompile successfully with only
>>>> scons building? Can you push your latest code so I can see it in your repo?
>>>>
>>>> Also each builder can only hold one target or source scanner, but you
>>>> can chain the scanner by calling other scanners from within the single
>>>> scanner. Are you assigning multiple scanners to the same builder?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:17 AM liruncong2018 <liruncong2018 at qq.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Daniel Moody,
>>>>> Thanks a lot for the example you gave. According to your example, I
>>>>> added 4 scanners, which can indeed be compiled and linked.
>>>>> But when I edit the source file, I deliberately put "a" at the end of
>>>>> the .cpp file and expect the compilation to fail. But when I compile again,
>>>>> nothing compiles.
>>>>> How to diagnose this problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
>>>>> *发件人:* "Daniel Moody" <dmoody256 at gmail.com>;
>>>>> *发送时间:* 2022年4月14日(星期四) 凌晨2:27
>>>>> *收件人:* "liruncong2018"<liruncong2018 at qq.com>;
>>>>> *抄送:* "SCons users mailing list"<scons-users at scons.org>;
>>>>> *主题:* Re: [Scons-users] 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： Ninja compilation fails
>>>>> after using include path file instead of "-I" option
>>>>>
>>>>> I added an example how to hook up the dependencies:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/liruncong/NinJaTest/pull/1/files
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:01 AM liruncong2018 <liruncong2018 at qq.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I generate some option files via env.Textfile
>>>>>> ("build/__cpp_path.txt", "build/__define_options.txt",
>>>>>> "build/__link_objects.txt", "build/__exe_cpp_path.txt") and make objs
>>>>>> depend on corresponding files ,for example:
>>>>>> env.Depends(objs, ["build/__cpp_path.txt",
>>>>>> "build/__define_options.txt" ])
>>>>>> env.Depends(target, "build/__link_objects.txt")
>>>>>> But after enabling ninja, these manually added dependencies are
>>>>>> ignored, which causes ninja to fail to compile.
>>>>>> How to deal with this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
>>>>>> *发件人:* "Daniel Moody" <dmoody256 at gmail.com>;
>>>>>> *发送时间:* 2022年4月13日(星期三) 凌晨0:02
>>>>>> *收件人:* "SCons users mailing list"<scons-users at scons.org>;
>>>>>> *抄送:* "liruncong2018"<liruncong2018 at qq.com>;
>>>>>> *主题:* Re: [Scons-users] 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： Ninja compilation fails
>>>>>> after using include path file instead of "-I" option
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, that PR is meant to support shared @file with ninja, not
>>>>>> intended for any improvements to TEMPFILE. Please test without TEMPFILE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 10:52 AM liruncong2018 via Scons-users <
>>>>>> scons-users at scons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>> I tested "https://github.com/SCons/scons/pull/4133", after enabling
>>>>>>> ningja, except for the link failure, .c/.cpp/.S are successfully compiled
>>>>>>> into .o, the total time is 6:48 .
>>>>>>> This time is much greater than the previous time of 3:45 when ninja
>>>>>>> was not enabled and the option file was shared using @file.
>>>>>>> After using TEMPFILE instead of @file, the compilation time is
>>>>>>> basically doubled whether ninja is enabled or not.
>>>>>>> The TEMPFILE function should be improved to use shared files to
>>>>>>> prevent the creation of a large number of temporary files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
>>>>>>> *发件人:* "SCons users mailing list" <dmoody256 at gmail.com>;
>>>>>>> *发送时间:* 2022年4月11日(星期一) 晚上11:43
>>>>>>> *收件人:* "SCons users mailing list"<scons-users at scons.org>;
>>>>>>> *主题:* Re: [Scons-users] 回复： 回复： 回复： 回复： Ninja compilation fails
>>>>>>> after using include path file instead of "-I" option
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a potential fix to the ninja tool so that it can decide to
>>>>>>> use response files or not. This should allow you to use your own shared
>>>>>>> response file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/SCons/scons/pull/4133
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:01 AM Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 08:57, liruncong2018 via Scons-users wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>>>>> > Even using msys2 does not solve all problems. The 32K limit
>>>>>>>> solves my
>>>>>>>> > compilation problems (.cpp -> .o) but not linking (.o -> target)
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> > the link command line has around 137K (about 2500 .o files). So
>>>>>>>> > compilers such as gcc/clang/armclang will support "@file".
>>>>>>>> > Currently, scons needs to set up Depends when using @file. This
>>>>>>>> > dependency suggestion is still directly supported by scons, and
>>>>>>>> users do
>>>>>>>> > not need to write dependencies. It should also be supported when
>>>>>>>> ninja
>>>>>>>> > is enabled.
>>>>>>>> > When LINKCOM uses "TEMPFILE", I get a link failure because
>>>>>>>> armlink.exe
>>>>>>>> > checks if --cpu is specified on the command line, so it is not
>>>>>>>> > reasonable for "TEMPFILE" to put all options to a temporary file.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right... thus my suggestion - well, let's call it "musing" rather
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> "suggestion" because this might not work at all:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > For ninja it currently looks like this:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > env["LINKCOM"] = '${TEMPFILE("$LINK $LINKFLAGS
>>>>>>>> /OUT:$TARGET.windows
>>>>>>>> > $_LIBDIRFLAGS $_LIBFLAGS $_PDB $SOURCES.windows", "$LINKCOMSTR")}'
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > env["SHLINKCOM"] = '${TEMPFILE("$SHLINK $SHLINKFLAGS
>>>>>>>> $_SHLINK_TARGETS
>>>>>>>> > $_LIBDIRFLAGS $_LIBFLAGS $_PDB $_SHLINK_SOURCES",
>>>>>>>> "$SHLINKCOMSTR")}'
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > So I'm curious if moving $LINK $LINKFLAGS to the left of
>>>>>>>> ${TEMPFILE
>>>>>>>> > would help...
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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/20220416/3c95c533/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Scons-users
mailing list