Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2004303005:
Force split-dwarf off for nacl_helper_bootstrap. (Closed)
|
Created:
4 years, 7 months ago by Dirk Pranke Modified:
4 years, 6 months ago CC:
native-client-reviews_googlegroups.com Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/src/native_client.git@master Target Ref:
refs/heads/master Project:
nacl Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionForce split-dwarf off for nacl_helper_bootstrap.
In CrOS builds they may be trying to enable split-dwarf even
in non-clang builds, and we want to make sure we never use
it for nacl_helper_bootstrap.
R=mcgrathr@chromium.org
BUG=608596
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/src/native_client/+/f9308087f764c0f4341e3200baded605c917eb49
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : add comment #Messages
Total messages: 22 (8 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by dpranke@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2004303005/1 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2004303005/1
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has received an L-G-T-M from a full committer. Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer, _not_ a full super star committer. Committers are members of the group "project-nacl-committers". Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.
bradnelson@chromium.org changed reviewers: + bradnelson@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by bradnelson@chromium.org
lgtm
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2004303005/1 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2004303005/1
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Try jobs failed on following builders: nacl-precise32_newlib_opt on tryserver.nacl (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.nacl/builders/nacl-precise32_newlib_opt...) nacl-precise64_arm_glibc_opt on tryserver.nacl (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.nacl/builders/nacl-precise64_arm_glibc_...) nacl-precise64_arm_newlib_opt on tryserver.nacl (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.nacl/builders/nacl-precise64_arm_newlib...) nacl-precise64_newlib_dbg on tryserver.nacl (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.nacl/builders/nacl-precise64_newlib_dbg...) nacl-precise64_newlib_opt on tryserver.nacl (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.nacl/builders/nacl-precise64_newlib_opt...)
Bah, I thought I could get away w/o a chrome-side change. Guess not.
lgtm after chrome_rev DEPS roll lands. A comment wouldn't hurt though.
On 2016/05/24 22:53:19, Roland McGrath wrote: > lgtm after chrome_rev DEPS roll lands. > A comment wouldn't hurt though. Do you want me to update the comment on lines 7-10? I was mostly hoping that the "see ../BUILD.gn for details" comment would suffice.
On 2016/05/24 22:54:51, Dirk Pranke (slow) wrote: > On 2016/05/24 22:53:19, Roland McGrath wrote: > > lgtm after chrome_rev DEPS roll lands. > > A comment wouldn't hurt though. > > Do you want me to update the comment on lines 7-10? I was mostly hoping that the > "see ../BUILD.gn for details" comment would suffice. That's sufficient.
On 2016/05/25 16:37:31, Roland McGrath wrote: > On 2016/05/24 22:54:51, Dirk Pranke (slow) wrote: > > On 2016/05/24 22:53:19, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > lgtm after chrome_rev DEPS roll lands. > > > A comment wouldn't hurt though. > > > > Do you want me to update the comment on lines 7-10? I was mostly hoping that > the > > "see ../BUILD.gn for details" comment would suffice. > > That's sufficient. Is this good to go, can we put it in the CQ?
On 2016/05/27 03:09:59, stevenjb wrote: > On 2016/05/25 16:37:31, Roland McGrath wrote: > > On 2016/05/24 22:54:51, Dirk Pranke (slow) wrote: > > > On 2016/05/24 22:53:19, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > > lgtm after chrome_rev DEPS roll lands. > > > > A comment wouldn't hurt though. > > > > > > Do you want me to update the comment on lines 7-10? I was mostly hoping that > > the > > > "see ../BUILD.gn for details" comment would suffice. > > > > That's sufficient. > > Is this good to go, can we put it in the CQ? It doesn't look to me like //build has been updated for native_client, so, not yet.
The CQ bit was checked by mcgrathr@chromium.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from bradnelson@chromium.org, mcgrathr@chromium.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2004303005/#ps20001 (title: "add comment")
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2004303005/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2004303005/20001
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Force split-dwarf off for nacl_helper_bootstrap. In CrOS builds they may be trying to enable split-dwarf even in non-clang builds, and we want to make sure we never use it for nacl_helper_bootstrap. R=mcgrathr@chromium.org BUG=608596 ========== to ========== Force split-dwarf off for nacl_helper_bootstrap. In CrOS builds they may be trying to enable split-dwarf even in non-clang builds, and we want to make sure we never use it for nacl_helper_bootstrap. R=mcgrathr@chromium.org BUG=608596 Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/src/native_client/+/f9308087f... ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/src/native_client/+/f9308087f... |
