|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
DescriptionUpdate linux static initializer check in sizes.py
Newer versions of gcc put "frame_dummy" in the .init_array
when it was previously called from _init. Since sizes.py
uses the size of the .init_array to determine the number
of static initializers we need to take this extra element
into account.
BUG=701478
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#458807}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/55844bc1348ddf628a1559a2ed4532fe6f614478
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 1
Patch Set 2 : . #Patch Set 3 : cleanup #Messages
Total messages: 24 (10 generated)
sbc@chromium.org changed reviewers: + phajdan.jr@chromium.org
I'm not sure how i'm supposed to actually run or test this script locally, or on the bots. Any tips?
thakis@chromium.org changed reviewers: + thakis@chromium.org
lgtm I think I used to just run this locally with build_directory mocked out locally, the script is fairly stand-alone. But testing it live is probably fine too. This seems like a nice approach. https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002/diff/1/infra/scripts/legacy/script... File infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002/diff/1/infra/scripts/legacy/script... infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py:305: # but we don't want to count this entry, since it alwasy present and nothing typos "it alwasy"
On 2017/03/21 21:04:24, Nico wrote: > lgtm > > I think I used to just run this locally with build_directory mocked out > locally, the script is fairly stand-alone. But testing it live is probably fine > too. > > This seems like a nice approach. > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002/diff/1/infra/scripts/legacy/script... > File infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py (right): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002/diff/1/infra/scripts/legacy/script... > infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py:305: # but we don't want to > count this entry, since it alwasy present and nothing > typos "it alwasy" OK, I'l give that a try. For the record, out of the box, if I try to run it via testing/scripts/sizes.py I get this: sbc.sbc (~/dev/chromium/src) $ testing/scripts/sizes.py run --output=foo.txt Traceback (most recent call last): File "testing/scripts/sizes.py", line 77, in <module> sys.exit(common.run_script(sys.argv[1:], funcs)) File "/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/testing/scripts/common.py", line 63, in run_script return args.func(args) File "testing/scripts/sizes.py", line 22, in main_run '--json', tempfile_path]) File "/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/testing/scripts/common.py", line 100, in run_runtest cmd_args.paths['runit.py'], KeyError: 'runit.py' Running it directly gives: sbc.sbc (~/dev/chromium/src) $ infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py", line 25, in <module> from slave import build_directory ImportError: No module named slave
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:08 PM, <sbc@chromium.org> wrote: > On 2017/03/21 21:04:24, Nico wrote: > > lgtm > > > > I think I used to just run this locally with build_directory mocked out > > locally, the script is fairly stand-alone. But testing it live is > probably > fine > > too. > > > > This seems like a nice approach. > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002/diff/1/infra/ > scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py > > File infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py (right): > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002/diff/1/infra/ > scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py#newcode305 > > infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py:305: # but we > don't want > to > > count this entry, since it alwasy present and nothing > > typos "it alwasy" > > OK, I'l give that a try. > > For the record, out of the box, if I try to run it via > testing/scripts/sizes.py > I get this: > > sbc.sbc (~/dev/chromium/src) $ testing/scripts/sizes.py run > --output=foo.txt > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "testing/scripts/sizes.py", line 77, in <module> > sys.exit(common.run_script(sys.argv[1:], funcs)) > File "/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/testing/ > scripts/common.py", > line 63, in run_script > return args.func(args) > File "testing/scripts/sizes.py", line 22, in main_run > '--json', tempfile_path]) > File "/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/testing/ > scripts/common.py", > line 100, in run_runtest > cmd_args.paths['runit.py'], > KeyError: 'runit.py' > > Running it directly gives: > > sbc.sbc (~/dev/chromium/src) $ > infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "infra/scripts/legacy/scripts/slave/chromium/sizes.py", line 25, in > <module> > from slave import build_directory > ImportError: No module named slave > Right, comment out that line and change callers to point to your local build dir. > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002/ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-reviews" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
managed to test locally and updated script the make this a little easier. ptal
The CQ bit was checked by sbc@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Meh, I liked patch set 1 (+ fix) better, the new version now runs some code at module import time (i.e. it adds a static initialize to the python script, so to speak), and it's fairly easy to change for debugging. But up to you.
On 2017/03/21 21:33:42, Nico wrote: > Meh, I liked patch set 1 (+ fix) better, the new version now runs some code at > module import time (i.e. it adds a static initialize to the python script, so to > speak), and it's fairly easy to change for debugging. But up to you. Fair enough. good to keep this change focus anyway.
The CQ bit was checked by sbc@chromium.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from thakis@chromium.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002/#ps40001 (title: "cleanup")
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Try jobs failed on following builders: chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)
LGTM
The CQ bit was checked by sbc@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
CQ is committing da patch.
Bot data: {"patchset_id": 40001, "attempt_start_ts": 1490202921673020,
"parent_rev": "a6d343f911171278376b4509f7da9d90592b03ee", "commit_rev":
"55844bc1348ddf628a1559a2ed4532fe6f614478"}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Update linux static initializer check in sizes.py Newer versions of gcc put "frame_dummy" in the .init_array when it was previously called from _init. Since sizes.py uses the size of the .init_array to determine the number of static initializers we need to take this extra element into account. BUG=701478 ========== to ========== Update linux static initializer check in sizes.py Newer versions of gcc put "frame_dummy" in the .init_array when it was previously called from _init. Since sizes.py uses the size of the .init_array to determine the number of static initializers we need to take this extra element into account. BUG=701478 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2765983002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#458807} Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/55844bc1348ddf628a1559a2ed45... ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) as https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/55844bc1348ddf628a1559a2ed45...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
thestig@chromium.org changed reviewers: + thestig@chromium.org
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Can we drop this after r462181?
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2017/04/07 21:06:53, Lei Zhang wrote: > Can we drop this after r462181? Kinda.. we need to keep the -= 1, but we can make it unconditional perhaps? I'm tempted to update the comment and remove the TODO, but keep the conditional just in case. |
