Re: Any chance to merge the gbuild branch rather soonish?

[Damjan Jovanovic]

I've narrowed this Windows build performance regression down to the
original branches/gbuild commits 1409589 and 1409590, which go together and
can't be split up.

* r1409589: gnumake4: #i117845#: LinkTarget.mk: fix dep-files for
GenCxxObjects:
 pass the dep-file target explicitly as a parameter to the Object__commands.
* r1409590: gnumake4: #i117845#: LinkTarget.mk: refactor dep-files:
 introduce dependency from object dep-file to object.

The make rules involved are complex and affect all platforms. Proceeding
further is a real PITA :-(.


On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

> The Windows build performance regression first occurs in r1735004, which
> takes 676 minutes to build compared to 330 minutes in the commit just
> before it. Only wall clock time increases, "user" and "system" times remain
> the same.
>
> 4 patches from branches/gbuild were merged in that commit. 3 of them are
> rather complex and none jump out at me, so I'll have to do more splitting
> up and building to find the one responsible.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Damjan Jovanovic 
> wrote:
>
>> I am back to gbuild, have moved my Windows VM's disk to the faster ext3
>> filesystem, and have begun doing the only thing I can think of to debug
>> this: manually "bisection testing" the gbuild-reintegration branch to try
>> isolate which patch causes the build performance regression.
>>
>> There is 136 patches ported from the branches/gbuild branch that have
>> been merged in batches to branches/gbuild-reintegration.
>> Patch 129 builds in 341 minutes.
>> Patch 43 builds in 335 minutes.
>>
>> So it must be one of the 42 most recent patches.
>> Currently compiling patch 16.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Kay Schenk 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/05/2016 10:51 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>>
 Windows XP SP3 32-bit on a VirtualBox instance on FreeBSD, underlying
 filesystem is ZFS which does cause I/O slowdown, but not enough to
 explain
 this.

 Can't remember what compiler I installed; there are Windows SDK 7 and
 Visual Studio 9 directories.

>>>
>>> Despite the lag, I'd like to get back to this given all your effort so
>>> far.
>>>
>>> Do you still have your config.log? It should show in there what it found
>>> for the C compiler.
>>>
>>> OK, and maybe a crazy idea. Despite the fact that we're having problems
>>> with the Win7 build for our usual processing, would it be worth doing a
>>> merge INTO the guild branch and setting up an additional win buildbot for
>>> that?
>>>
>>>
 SDK_PATH="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v7.0"
 ./configure --with-frame-home="$SDK_PATH" --with-psdk-home="$SDK_PATH"
 --with-midl-path="$SDK_PATH/bin"
 --with-ant-home="/cygdrive/c/apache-ant-1.9.6" --with-dmake-url="
 http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2;
 --with-epm-url="
 http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz;
 --enable-pch --disable-atl --disable-activex --without-junit
 --with-cl-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Visual Studio
 9.0/VC"
 --with-csc-path="/cygdrive/c/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v3.5"
 --with-jdk-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Java/jdk1.7.0"
 --disable-directx
 --with-package-format="installed" --enable-wiki-publisher

 I am currently thinking we will gain more from porting to Java, than
 trying
 to maintain a build system for the buggy, leaky, complex, crash-prone,
 insecure languages that are C/C++.

>>>
>>> I don't know if its C++, which is still very widely used for programming
>>> development, or our complicated code, of which I'm guessing, at least 25%
>>> could be eliminated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Kay Schenk 
 wrote:

 On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Damjan Jovanovic 
> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I discovered a major problem with the
>> gbuild-reintegration branch: on Windows, the build time of trunk is
>> about 3-4 hours, but it's over 12 hours to build gbuild-reintegration
>> :-(. I don't have time to investigate soon, nor do I know where to
>> even begin...
>>
>>
> ​Hi Damjan, and thanks for this update even it is disappointing.
>
> Could you share what the specifics are for the Windows platform you're
> using for the build?
>
> * specific Windows OS
> * C compiler and flags
> * build options
> * ​
>
> ​anything else?
>
> Thanks again for all your work on this. We can work this out.
> ​
>
>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello;
>>>
>>> FWIW, I am preparing a second round of spelling fixes ... it's a
>>> quite big change. I would prefer to do such changes *after* the
>>> new build system 

Re: disabling crash recovery

[Don Lewis]

On 27 Jul, Marcus wrote:
> Am 07/27/2016 08:00 PM, schrieb Don Lewis:
>> Is there any way of disabling the automagic crash recovery?  I'm
>> attempting to debug a crash and the crash recovery / restart seems to be
>> confusing gdb.  Just letting SIGSEGV take its natural course of action
>> would be fine.
> 
> are you looking for this [1]?
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Debugging#gdb_invocation
> 
> If not, then I only know the commandline parameter for configure to 
> disable this feature when creating a new build.

The crashdump knob gave me a basic stack trace, but it wasn't really
enough information to debug the issue.  I ended up having to make the
one-line source change to that page to disable SIGSEGV interception in
order to get a core file and point gdb at that.  Unfortunately, gdb on
FreeBSD gets seems to get confused by thread switching and usually locks
up even before I can trigger the crash.  I only managed to capture the
crash once with gdb running a live process.

For fun, try configuring a build with --enable-debug and
--enable-dbgutil.  Lots of pop-up assertion failure alerts ...


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: java downloader

[Don Lewis]

On 28 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Yes, that site's certificate is issued by Let's Encrypt, which is only
> supported starting from Oracle Java 8u101 (
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34110426/does-java-support-lets-encrypt-certificates).
> AFAIK, OpenJDK doesn't come with any certificates upstream, and they're
> usually supplied by your distribution.
> 
> I've uploaded it to ooo-extras.

Thanks!

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[Forum] Upgrade signature string

[Hagar Delest]

Hi,

A long time complaint from users: 
https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=102=59884
Basically, is it possible for someone having access to the phpBB configuration 
files to update the requirements?

In the forum we have some discussions about the feature. Bidouille (admin of the French 
forum aka "FR web forum") may have some history on how it works also.

Thanks,
Hagar

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: java downloader

[Damjan Jovanovic]

Yes, that site's certificate is issued by Let's Encrypt, which is only
supported starting from Oracle Java 8u101 (
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34110426/does-java-support-lets-encrypt-certificates).
AFAIK, OpenJDK doesn't come with any certificates upstream, and they're
usually supplied by your distribution.

I've uploaded it to ooo-extras.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:

> The java downloader chokes on http://curl.haxx.se, which is the location
> of the curl source.  This site does a redirect from http to https.  We
> currently aren't seeing the problem because we have curl-7.19.7.tar.gz
> checked into svn under ext_sources, but it will be a problem once I
> upgrade the bundled version of curl. The perl downloader mostly worked
> with this site.  It worked on all the platforms that I tried except for
> Ubuntu 12. It worked for me on FreeBSD, Windows 7, and CentOS 7.
>
> The problem is a certificate verification error.  I suspect that the
> behaviour depends on the installed certificate bundle.
>
> Could someone download curl-7.49.1.tar.gz and upload it to OOO_EXTRAS?
> I don't want to break everybody's trunk build when I commit the upgrade
> patch.  The md5 hash is 2feb3767b958add6a177c6602ff21e8c.
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

java downloader

[Don Lewis]

The java downloader chokes on http://curl.haxx.se, which is the location
of the curl source.  This site does a redirect from http to https.  We
currently aren't seeing the problem because we have curl-7.19.7.tar.gz
checked into svn under ext_sources, but it will be a problem once I
upgrade the bundled version of curl. The perl downloader mostly worked
with this site.  It worked on all the platforms that I tried except for
Ubuntu 12. It worked for me on FreeBSD, Windows 7, and CentOS 7.

The problem is a certificate verification error.  I suspect that the
behaviour depends on the installed certificate bundle.

Could someone download curl-7.49.1.tar.gz and upload it to OOO_EXTRAS?
I don't want to break everybody's trunk build when I commit the upgrade
patch.  The md5 hash is 2feb3767b958add6a177c6602ff21e8c.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org