Re: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-03 Thread Chris AtLee
On 18:23, Mon, 02 Dec, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: As for identifying broken non-unified builds, can we configure one of our mozilla-inbound platforms to be non-unified (like 32-bit Linux Debug)? I think the answer to that question depends on how soon bug 942167 can be fixed. Chris, any ideas? We'

Disabling unified builds on mozilla-inbound debug builds Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-02 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 06:23:00PM -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 12/2/2013, 2:36 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: > >On 11/29/13, 7:39 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >>I think it's time, 9 days before the merge, to think about whether we > >>want unified builds to ride the train or not. I'm almost tempted to

Re: Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-02 Thread Taras Glek
Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 12/2/2013, 2:26 PM, Taras Glek wrote: Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:39:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: Incidentally, in those two weeks, I did two attempts at building without unified sources, resulting in me filing 4 bugs in different modules for pro

Re: Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-02 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 12/2/2013, 2:26 PM, Taras Glek wrote: Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:39:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: Incidentally, in those two weeks, I did two attempts at building without unified sources, resulting in me filing 4 bugs in different modules for problems caused by 6 differ

Re: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-02 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 12/2/2013, 2:36 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 11/29/13, 7:39 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: I think it's time, 9 days before the merge, to think about whether we want unified builds to ride the train or not. I'm almost tempted to suggest that we disable unified builds on nightlies, but that would prob

Re: Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-02 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 11/30/2013, 2:09 AM, Bobby Holley wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: That is: using namespace foo; would be forbidden, but namespace bar { using namespace foo; } wouldn't. In most cases, bar could be mozilla anyways. Most XPConnect stuf

Re: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-02 Thread Chris Peterson
On 11/29/13, 7:39 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: I think it's time, 9 days before the merge, to think about whether we want unified builds to ride the train or not. I'm almost tempted to suggest that we disable unified builds on nightlies, but that would probably hide the problems even more. I don't th

Re: Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-02 Thread Taras Glek
Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:39:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: Incidentally, in those two weeks, I did two attempts at building without unified sources, resulting in me filing 4 bugs in different modules for problems caused by 6 different landings[1]. I think it is time to ser

Re: Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-12-01 Thread Bobby Holley
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > I'm all for reducing usage of 'using' and in .cpp files I've been switching > to doing > > namespace foo { > // my code > } > > instead of > > using namespace foo; > // my code > This only works if you want to put all

Re: Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-11-30 Thread Benoit Jacob
I'm all for reducing usage of 'using' and in .cpp files I've been switching to doing namespace foo { // my code } instead of using namespace foo; // my code where possible, as the latter leaks to other .cpp files in unified builds and the former doesn't. Regarding the p

Re: Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-11-29 Thread Bobby Holley
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > That is: > > using namespace foo; > > would be forbidden, but > > namespace bar { > using namespace foo; > } > > wouldn't. In most cases, bar could be mozilla anyways. > Most XPConnect stuff isn't in an explicit namespace,

Re: Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-11-29 Thread Robert O'Callahan
If everyone puts "using namespace foo;" inside "namespace mozilla {}", that won't help much, right? I'd prefer to minimize the source code changes required here. A tinderbox non-unified build seems like the way to go. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eov

Re: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-11-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:39:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi, > > Unified builds have been around for about two weeks. They are nice > because they make the build so much faster. On the other hand, we know > they currently break crash reports on mac (bug 943695), and can break > things in sub

Mitigating unified build side effects Was: Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-11-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:39:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > Incidentally, in those two weeks, I did two attempts at building > without unified sources, resulting in me filing 4 bugs in different > modules for problems caused by 6 different landings[1]. I think it is time > to seriously think abo

Thinking about the merge with unified build

2013-11-29 Thread Mike Hommey
Hi, Unified builds have been around for about two weeks. They are nice because they make the build so much faster. On the other hand, we know they currently break crash reports on mac (bug 943695), and can break things in subtle ways (bug 942421, bug 943839). We don't know what problems are still