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.ke...@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-boun...@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 <techto...@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@scons.org > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev