[PATCH 1/2] icecc: remove bb.errors on un-built compilers

[PATCH 1/2] icecc: remove bb.errors on un-built compilers

[Roman I Khimov]

Building things with icecc and BB_NUMBER_THREADS more then 1 you could see
a lot of messages:

ERROR: no cross compiler built yet?

before gcc-cross would be properly built. There is technically nothing wrong,
cross compiler is not there yet and it's not needed when bitbake does
fetch-unpack-patch and other things to prepare package build. But it makes
people uncomfortable.

We can safely kill this messages.
---
 classes/icecc.bbclass |    2 --
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/classes/icecc.bbclass b/classes/icecc.bbclass
index 0eb2d9f..27e0e56 100644
--- a/classes/icecc.bbclass
+++ b/classes/icecc.bbclass
@@ -62,7 +62,6 @@ def create_cross_env(bb,d):
         os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, target_sys, 'lib', 'libstdc++.so'))
         os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, target_sys, 'bin', 'g++'))
     except: # no cross compiler built yet
-        bb.error('no cross compiler built yet?')
         return ""
 
     VERSION = icc_determine_gcc_version( os.path.join(ice_dir,target_sys,"bin","g++") )
@@ -159,7 +158,6 @@ def create_cross_kernel_env(bb,d):
     try:
         os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, 'bin', kernel_cc))
     except: # no cross compiler built yet
-        bb.error('no kernel cross compiler built yet')
         return ""
 
     VERSION = icc_determine_gcc_version( os.path.join(ice_dir,"bin",kernel_cc) )
-- 
1.6.3.3

[PATCH 2/2] icecc: introduce ICECC_FALLBACK_PARALLEL

[Roman I Khimov]

icecc-blacklisted packages currently built not only without icecc environment
set but also without any parallel options enabled. The original intention was
not to kill the build machine, I guess, since having a good icecc cluster it's
easy to set '-j16' or '-j32' or whatever else which could do so. However as
the toolchain packages are blacklisted for icecc they're becoming a
bottleneck in the build process, while they can be built with local-machine
parallelism.

So, in order to solve it, introducing ICECC_FALLBACK_PARALLEL option. It's
simply used as PARALLEL_MAKE for icecc-blacklisted packages.
---
 classes/icecc.bbclass |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/classes/icecc.bbclass b/classes/icecc.bbclass
index 27e0e56..f8855b6 100644
--- a/classes/icecc.bbclass
+++ b/classes/icecc.bbclass
@@ -261,7 +261,8 @@ def icc_path(bb,d):
     for black in package_blacklist:
         if black in package_tmp:
             bb.note(package_tmp, ' found in blacklist, disable icecc')
-            bb.data.setVar("PARALLEL_MAKE" , "", d) 
+            fallback_parallel = bb.data.getVar('ICECC_FALLBACK_PARALLEL', d) or ""
+            bb.data.setVar("PARALLEL_MAKE", fallback_parallel, d)
             return ""
 
     prefix = bb.data.expand('${HOST_PREFIX}', d)
-- 
1.6.3.3

Re: [PATCH 2/2] icecc: introduce ICECC_FALLBACK_PARALLEL

[Phil Blundell]

On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 16:52 +0400, Roman I Khimov wrote:
> icecc-blacklisted packages currently built not only without icecc environment
> set but also without any parallel options enabled. The original intention was
> not to kill the build machine, I guess, since having a good icecc cluster it's
> easy to set '-j16' or '-j32' or whatever else which could do so. However as
> the toolchain packages are blacklisted for icecc they're becoming a
> bottleneck in the build process, while they can be built with local-machine
> parallelism.
> 
> So, in order to solve it, introducing ICECC_FALLBACK_PARALLEL option. It's
> simply used as PARALLEL_MAKE for icecc-blacklisted packages.

Maybe it would be better to do this the other way around: have an
ICECC_PARALLEL_MAKE which is used instead of PARALLEL_MAKE when icecc is
selected, and make this be the one that you set to "-j1024".  Then, if
icecc is disabled for any reason (blacklisted package, or just because
you stop inheriting the class) it would go back to using the regular
PARALLEL_MAKE setting.

p.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] icecc: introduce ICECC_FALLBACK_PARALLEL

[Roman I Khimov]

On Среда 15 июля 2009 18:09:03 Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 16:52 +0400, Roman I Khimov wrote:
> > icecc-blacklisted packages currently built not only without icecc
> > environment set but also without any parallel options enabled. The
> > original intention was not to kill the build machine, I guess, since
> > having a good icecc cluster it's easy to set '-j16' or '-j32' or whatever
> > else which could do so. However as the toolchain packages are blacklisted
> > for icecc they're becoming a bottleneck in the build process, while they
> > can be built with local-machine parallelism.
> >
> > So, in order to solve it, introducing ICECC_FALLBACK_PARALLEL option.
> > It's simply used as PARALLEL_MAKE for icecc-blacklisted packages.
>
> Maybe it would be better to do this the other way around: have an
> ICECC_PARALLEL_MAKE which is used instead of PARALLEL_MAKE when icecc is
> selected, and make this be the one that you set to "-j1024".  Then, if
> icecc is disabled for any reason (blacklisted package, or just because
> you stop inheriting the class) it would go back to using the regular
> PARALLEL_MAKE setting.

Yep, thought of that, should be a better solution, but I have a doubt about 
recipes intentionally setting PARALLEL_MAKE to nothing (thus avoiding parallel 
build bugs in package). If we'll forcibly set PARALLEL_MAKE to 
ICECC_PARALLEL_MAKE in icecc.bbclass, it might break such packages.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] icecc: remove bb.errors on un-built compilers

[Khem Raj]

On (15/07/09 16:52), Roman I Khimov wrote:
> Building things with icecc and BB_NUMBER_THREADS more then 1 you could see
> a lot of messages:
> 
> ERROR: no cross compiler built yet?
> 
> before gcc-cross would be properly built. There is technically nothing wrong,
> cross compiler is not there yet and it's not needed when bitbake does
> fetch-unpack-patch and other things to prepare package build. But it makes
> people uncomfortable.
> 
> We can safely kill this messages.

provided that this part of code is not executed again when cross
compiler is really needed because then we will not get the warning
where we should get it legitimately.

Thanks

-Khem


> ---
>  classes/icecc.bbclass |    2 --
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/classes/icecc.bbclass b/classes/icecc.bbclass
> index 0eb2d9f..27e0e56 100644
> --- a/classes/icecc.bbclass
> +++ b/classes/icecc.bbclass
> @@ -62,7 +62,6 @@ def create_cross_env(bb,d):
>          os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, target_sys, 'lib', 'libstdc++.so'))
>          os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, target_sys, 'bin', 'g++'))
>      except: # no cross compiler built yet
> -        bb.error('no cross compiler built yet?')
>          return ""
>  
>      VERSION = icc_determine_gcc_version( os.path.join(ice_dir,target_sys,"bin","g++") )
> @@ -159,7 +158,6 @@ def create_cross_kernel_env(bb,d):
>      try:
>          os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, 'bin', kernel_cc))
>      except: # no cross compiler built yet
> -        bb.error('no kernel cross compiler built yet')
>          return ""
>  
>      VERSION = icc_determine_gcc_version( os.path.join(ice_dir,"bin",kernel_cc) )
> -- 
> 1.6.3.3
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] icecc: remove bb.errors on un-built compilers

[Roman I Khimov]

On Среда 15 июля 2009 21:15:30 Khem Raj wrote:
> On (15/07/09 16:52), Roman I Khimov wrote:
> > Building things with icecc and BB_NUMBER_THREADS more then 1 you could
> > see a lot of messages:
> >
> > ERROR: no cross compiler built yet?
> >
> > before gcc-cross would be properly built. There is technically nothing
> > wrong, cross compiler is not there yet and it's not needed when bitbake
> > does fetch-unpack-patch and other things to prepare package build. But it
> > makes people uncomfortable.
> >
> > We can safely kill this messages.
>
> provided that this part of code is not executed again when cross
> compiler is really needed because then we will not get the warning
> where we should get it legitimately.

It's needed on configure-compile stages as usual, so if there'll be no cross-
compiler at this stages you'll notice it anyway, I guess.

[PATCH 1/2] icecc: remove bb.errors on un-built compilers

[Roman I Khimov]

Building things with icecc and BB_NUMBER_THREADS more then 1 you could see
a lot of messages:

ERROR: no cross compiler built yet?

before gcc-cross would be properly built. There is technically nothing wrong,
cross compiler is not there yet and it's not needed when bitbake does
fetch-unpack-patch and other things to prepare package build. But it makes
people uncomfortable.

We can safely kill this messages.
---
 classes/icecc.bbclass |    2 --
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/classes/icecc.bbclass b/classes/icecc.bbclass
index 0eb2d9f..27e0e56 100644
--- a/classes/icecc.bbclass
+++ b/classes/icecc.bbclass
@@ -62,7 +62,6 @@ def create_cross_env(bb,d):
         os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, target_sys, 'lib', 'libstdc++.so'))
         os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, target_sys, 'bin', 'g++'))
     except: # no cross compiler built yet
-        bb.error('no cross compiler built yet?')
         return ""
 
     VERSION = icc_determine_gcc_version( os.path.join(ice_dir,target_sys,"bin","g++") )
@@ -159,7 +158,6 @@ def create_cross_kernel_env(bb,d):
     try:
         os.stat(os.path.join(ice_dir, 'bin', kernel_cc))
     except: # no cross compiler built yet
-        bb.error('no kernel cross compiler built yet')
         return ""
 
     VERSION = icc_determine_gcc_version( os.path.join(ice_dir,"bin",kernel_cc) )
-- 
1.6.3.3