Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
#1266 closed Bugs (fixed)
Implement -l option on Unix.
Reported by: | René Rivera | Owned by: | Noel Belcourt |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Boost.Jam 3.1.15 | Component: | bjam |
Version: | Boost.Jam 3.1.15 | Severity: | Problem |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
Implement the time limit bjam option "-lx" on Unix so we can change regression testers, i.e. change regression.py, to use that option universally.
Change History (11)
comment:1 by , 15 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|
comment:2 by , 15 years ago
Milestone: | To Be Determined → Boost.Jam 3.1.15 |
---|
comment:3 by , 15 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
follow-up: 5 comment:4 by , 15 years ago
Resolution: | fixed |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
Type: | Tasks → Bugs |
follow-ups: 6 7 comment:5 by , 15 years ago
Replying to grafik:
Seems the feature on Linux doesn't work for me. The root/tools/jam/test/option_l.jam test if failing for me in Unbuntu.
Hi Rene,
I only added -lx support to execunix.c. I noticed in option_l.jam that you're using the SHELL command and, to the best of my knowledge, SHELL doesn't call execcmd, it goes directly to /bin/sh.
So my question is, should I add support so that -lx works correctly for SHELL as well?
-- Noel
comment:6 by , 15 years ago
Replying to anonymous:
Replying to grafik:
Seems the feature on Linux doesn't work for me. The root/tools/jam/test/option_l.jam test if failing for me in Unbuntu.
Hi Rene,
I only added -lx support to execunix.c. I noticed in option_l.jam that you're using the SHELL command and, to the best of my knowledge, SHELL doesn't call execcmd, it goes directly to /bin/sh.
I believe builtin_shell calls popen to execute SHELL commands.
So my question is, should I add support so that -lx works correctly for SHELL as well?
follow-up: 8 comment:7 by , 15 years ago
Replying to anonymous:
Replying to grafik:
Seems the feature on Linux doesn't work for me. The root/tools/jam/test/option_l.jam test if failing for me in Unbuntu.
Hi Rene,
I only added -lx support to execunix.c. I noticed in option_l.jam that you're using the SHELL command and, to the best of my knowledge, SHELL doesn't call execcmd, it goes directly to /bin/sh.
The test uses SHELL to call bjam again so it can pass in the correct options, i.e. it's a recursive execution.
So my question is, should I add support so that -lx works correctly for SHELL as well?
No. You can run the test individually if you want with:
bjam -f option_l.jam -sBJAM_SUBTEST=1 -l2
The build action should fail. For me it's intermittent. Sometimes it works, but most times it doesn't. So I'm not sure how to replicate this.
follow-up: 9 comment:8 by , 15 years ago
Hi Rene,
Does this test output look right? If so, I'll commit this patch.
[kbelco@sahp7645 ~]$ cd /var/scratch/boost/tools/jam/test [kbelco@sahp7645 test]$ ./test.sh --- Testing SHELL builtin... --- Testing W32_GETREGNAMES builtin... --- Testing -d2 option... --- Testing -l option... --- Testing -n option... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of actions... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of multi-file actions... --- Testing var expansion... --- Testing var on target semantics... --- Testing var expansion... no file specified!
follow-up: 10 comment:9 by , 15 years ago
Replying to noel_belcourt:
Hi Rene,
Does this test output look right? If so, I'll commit this patch.
[kbelco@sahp7645 ~]$ cd /var/scratch/boost/tools/jam/test [kbelco@sahp7645 test]$ ./test.sh --- Testing SHELL builtin... --- Testing W32_GETREGNAMES builtin... --- Testing -d2 option... --- Testing -l option... --- Testing -n option... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of actions... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of multi-file actions... --- Testing var expansion... --- Testing var on target semantics... --- Testing var expansion... no file specified!
Except for that last error, which is the test for the building process_jam_log bug I fixed today, it looks OK. So you might want to update to make sure it runs all the way through. At the end it will print a completion summary.
comment:10 by , 15 years ago
Replying to grafik:
Replying to noel_belcourt:
Hi Rene,
Does this test output look right? If so, I'll commit this patch.
[kbelco@sahp7645 ~]$ cd /var/scratch/boost/tools/jam/test [kbelco@sahp7645 test]$ ./test.sh --- Testing SHELL builtin... --- Testing W32_GETREGNAMES builtin... --- Testing -d2 option... --- Testing -l option... --- Testing -n option... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of actions... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of multi-file actions... --- Testing var expansion... --- Testing var on target semantics... --- Testing var expansion... no file specified!
Except for that last error, which is the test for the building process_jam_log bug I fixed today, it looks OK. So you might want to update to make sure it runs all the way through. At the end it will print a completion summary.
[kbelco@sahp7645 test]$ ./test.sh --- Testing SHELL builtin... --- Testing W32_GETREGNAMES builtin... --- Testing -d2 option... --- Testing -l option... --- Testing -n option... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of actions... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of multi-file actions... --- Testing var expansion... --- Testing var on target semantics... --- Testing var expansion... --- Complete: PASSED(30) *FAILED(0)*
Okay, looks better. I'll get this committed soon.
comment:11 by , 15 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → closed |
Seems the feature on Linux doesn't work for me. The root/tools/jam/test/option_l.jam test if failing for me in Unbuntu.