On 1/18/20 9:33 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 1/17/20 11:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2020 21.25, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> Recent commit 3e7fb5811b "qapi: Fix code generation for empty modules"
>>>> modules" switched QAPISchema.visit() from
>>>>
>>>> for entity in self._entity_list:
>>>>
>>>> effectively to
>>>>
>>>> for mod in self._module_dict.values():
>>>> for entity in mod._entity_list:
>>>>
>>>> Visits in the same order as long as .values() is in insertion order.
>>>> That's the case only for Python 3.6 and later. Before, it's in some
>>>> arbitrary order, which results in broken generated code.
>>>>
>>>> Fix by making self._module_dict an OrderedDict rather than a dict.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 3e7fb5811baab213dcc7149c3aa69442d683c26c
>>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> scripts/qapi/schema.py | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/scripts/qapi/schema.py b/scripts/qapi/schema.py
>>>> index 0bfc5256fb..5100110fa2 100644
>>>> --- a/scripts/qapi/schema.py
>>>> +++ b/scripts/qapi/schema.py
>>>> @@ -795,7 +795,7 @@ class QAPISchema(object):
>>>> self.docs = parser.docs
>>>> self._entity_list = []
>>>> self._entity_dict = {}
>>>> - self._module_dict = {}
>>>> + self._module_dict = OrderedDict()
>>>> self._schema_dir = os.path.dirname(fname)
>>>> self._make_module(None) # built-ins
>>>> self._make_module(fname)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, this fixes the problems on Travis for me!
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
> Tested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
And per https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg671745.html:
Tested-by: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu>
>>> Peter, could you maybe apply this directly to the master branch as a
>>> build fix?
>>
>> The commit message isn't quite right: s/Visits in the same order/Visits
>> modules in the same order/. Peter, want me to respin for that?
>
> Since it is a single patch, it shouldn't be too much work to respin :)
>
> I agree this patch is candidate for direct fix on /master.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil.
>
>
