On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:15 AM Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com>
wrote:
Since it's not due to the b2 -j change..
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:25 AM Tom Kent via Boost-Testing <
boost-testing@lists.boost.org> wrote:
For the last few days (Since June 4?) I've been having problems with
all my linux tests running against the develop branch.
GCC ends with this:
gcc.compile.c++ ../../bin/common/build/gcc-8/release/process_jam_log.o
"g++-8" -fPIC -O3 -finline-functions -Wno-inline -Wall
-DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DNDEBUG -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS -
I"/var/boost/run/boost_root" -c -o
"../../bin/common/build/gcc-8/release/process_jam_log.o"
"../../common/build/../src/p
rocess_jam_log.cpp"
../../common/build/../src/process_jam_log.cpp: In function
'std::__cxx11::string {anonymous}::revision(const string&)':
../../common/build/../src/process_jam_log.cpp:359:16: warning:
ignoring return value of 'int system(const char*)', decla
red with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
std::system("git rev-parse --short=6 HEAD >.short-sha");
~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...skipped <p../../bin/testing/build/gcc-8/release>process_jam_log for
lack of <p/var/boost/run/boost_root/bin.v2/libs/f
ilesystem/build/gcc-8/release/link-static/visibility-hidden>libboost_filesystem.a...
I guess you'd need to find out what it says for trying to build
filesystem lib.
Here's what I'm seeing with the filesystem error:
ln -f -s
"../../libs/detail/include/boost/detail/has_default_constructor.hpp"
"../../../boost_root/boost/detail/has_
default_constructor.hpp"
gcc.compile.c++
/var/boost/run/boost_root/bin.v2/libs/filesystem/build/gcc-8/release/link-static/visibility-hidden/path_traits.o
"g++-8" -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -m64 -O3 -finline-functions
-Wno-inline -Wall -fvisibility=hidden -DBOOST_ALL
_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_FILESYSTEM_STATIC_LINK=1 -DNDEBUG
-I"/var/boost/run/boost_root" -c -o "/var/boost/run/boost_root/bin.
v2/libs/filesystem/build/gcc-8/release/link-static/visibility-hidden/path_traits.o"
"/var/boost/run/boost_root/libs/file
system/src/path_traits.cpp"
/var/boost/run/boost_root/libs/filesystem/src/path_traits.cpp:20:10:
fatal error: boost/filesystem/config.hpp: No such f
ile or directory
#include <boost/filesystem/config.hpp>
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.
...failed gcc.compile.c++
/var/boost/run/boost_root/bin.v2/libs/filesystem/build/gcc-8/release/link-static/visibility-hidden/path_traits.o...
gcc.compile.c++
/var/boost/run/boost_root/bin.v2/libs/filesystem/build/gcc-8/release/link-static/visibility-hidden/portability.o
"g++-8" -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -m64 -O3 -finline-functions
-Wno-inline -Wall -fvisibility=hidden -DBOOST_ALL
_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_FILESYSTEM_STATIC_LINK=1 -DNDEBUG
-I"/var/boost/run/boost_root" -c -o "/var/boost/run/boost_root/bin.
v2/libs/filesystem/build/gcc-8/release/link-static/visibility-hidden/portability.o"
"/var/boost/run/boost_root/libs/file
system/src/portability.cpp"
/var/boost/run/boost_root/libs/filesystem/src/portability.cpp:20:10:
fatal error: boost/filesystem/config.hpp: No such f
ile or directory
#include <boost/filesystem/config.hpp>
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.
...failed gcc.compile.c++
/var/boost/run/boost_root/bin.v2/libs/filesystem/build/gcc-8/release/link-static/visibility-hidden/portability.o...
And several more like that.
However, I'm also suspicious of the timing with the processor change.
Looking back at the last successful builds of develop on linux. I have a
few from linux/x86_64/docker machines. The last one I saw was building with
gcc-8 on June 4 around 6:30am CDT. There should have been a successful
clang run about 5hrs after that (11:30am CDT), and another successful gcc
around 10hrs after the last one that was actually successful (4:30pm CDT).
This seems like it would correspond to the change to build here:
https://github.com/boostorg/build/commit/451059949d92b52b21f802562a50587f1ee...
The other failure I started seeing was only my linux/arm64 machine. This
doesn't run docker, so might not be affected in the same way. The last
successful run on there was at 4:50pm CDT on June 4...but it typically
takes around 9hrs to run so it probably got the pre 451059949 commit.
However here I can't rule out that it was impacted by a8ab76ef973.
I'm going to try to standup some normal VMs soon and run on them to see
if they are affected in the same way. It would also be nice if we could try
backing out the usage of _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN and see if that fixes things,
is that feasible to try for a couple days?
Again.. It's not a b2 issue. Specifying the "-jX" option entirely
obviates the changed code. It's almost certainly something else. Places to
look would be in the filesystem lib, or the root "boost" project for
changes.
Rene Rivera
Tom Kent