[Scons-dev] This morning's WTF moment

[William Blevins]

Conceptually, I like Jason's suggestions.  I don't know how the 1 toolchain
per env would work in practice.  What about SWIG or JNI or other mixed
builds?
On Sep 8, 2014 12:19 PM, "Kenny, Jason L" <jason.l.kenny at intel.com> wrote:

>  SO I am all for improving the Tools logic. This was a big part of the
> work I did in Parts. Given what I have, I know there are some more tweaks I
> would like to make.
>
>
>
> Is there a process in how to add proposal to this wiki page. I know I
> would like to propose a possible infra set of objects to make it easier to
> find and set up a working tools environment. ( ie what is need to run
> command correctly)
>
>
>
> Also a general statement. Do we want to say SCons errors or warns when a
> tool in a toolchain is not found. I have taken a view that it should error
> out with information. ( for example the user might have stated they want
> icc v12.1, parts might error out given that it is not installed tell the
> user that 13.1 was found not 12.1). I have found that warnings turn to
> noise more often than not and are ignored ( or missed as the text just
> scrolls to fast). When the “error” does happen later ( and it will) the
> user is annoyed that had time wasted.
>
>
>
> For me it seems to me that is a toolchain is not resolvable we need to
> error.
>
>
>
> I would also state that we want to allow define one toolchain per env.
> Some toolchains cannot be mixed. And having a different env just makes it
> work better. D and C++ seems to a common case here. However this is more
> complex, as different chains could be mixed as they are independent. Being
> able to define what toolchain to use up front, vs having a default chain (
> which takes time and is a result of certain annoying warning on windows at
> time) seem to be a good solution, as we can provide chains, and allow then
> chain to complain is there are known incompatible issues.
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-bounces at scons.org] *On Behalf Of *Gary
> Oberbrunner
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 6, 2014 8:09 AM
> *To:* SCons developer list
> *Subject:* Re: [Scons-dev] This morning's WTF moment
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 8:41 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I disagree.  I am currently taking action on it.  There is some
> > documentation on the wiki describing my direction, and I'm writing some
> test
> > code to explore further.
>
> I am afraid you're the only one who knows what you're doing. =) If you
> could paste a reference to this specific wiki location, I could change
> my mind, but so far I am definitely not in the list of people who are
> able to track this progress.
>
>
> http://www.scons.org/wiki/ToolchainRevamp (and related sub-pages).  There
> was some mailing list discussion which I wanted to cut and paste into the
> discussion page but didn't get around to that yet.  Admittedly this is not
> 100% up to date but it describes the general approach I'm investigating.
>
>
>
> I have a separate repo where I'm working on some test implementations,
> starting with a basic test framework for a new Tool base class and a
> ToolRegistry (my tasks for this weekend if I can get enough time).  But
> it's nowhere near ready to share, which is why I just posted some
> pseudocode on that wiki page.  I need to strike a balance between sharing
> the design and being transparent so people can give feedback, and trying
> things out.
>
>
>
> --
> Gary
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev at scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20140908/3b43eeda/attachment-0001.html>