eeloo

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

eeloo

Ken Martin

Did someone update eeloo or change it's configuration somehow, resulting in lots of buildbot warnings? If so are you working on fixing them? It's been a bit yellow for a few days now.

Thanks!
Ken



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Shawn Waldon-2
eeloo was updated from fedora 26 to 28 since 26 end of life was at the beginning of June.  And I was on vacation for the end of last week, so no I haven't looked at fixing them yet.  I'll look at them this morning.

Shawn

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Ken Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Did someone update eeloo or change it's configuration somehow, resulting in lots of buildbot warnings? If so are you working on fixing them? It's been a bit yellow for a few days now.

Thanks!
Ken



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers




_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Shawn Waldon-2
Hi,

So after looking at these a bit, I think we are running into the same or very similar false positives as gdb did here: [1]  All the errors I have looked through so far have been false positives.  Do we prefer fixing these (changing our code just to work around the warnings) or just disabling those warnings on eeloo?

Shawn


On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Shawn Waldon <[hidden email]> wrote:
eeloo was updated from fedora 26 to 28 since 26 end of life was at the beginning of June.  And I was on vacation for the end of last week, so no I haven't looked at fixing them yet.  I'll look at them this morning.

Shawn

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Ken Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Did someone update eeloo or change it's configuration somehow, resulting in lots of buildbot warnings? If so are you working on fixing them? It's been a bit yellow for a few days now.

Thanks!
Ken



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers





_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Ken Martin
I think that is a crazy warning gcc is producing and we should disable it. Way too many false positives with their approach. Can you change the compile flags on eeloo to remove that warning?

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Shawn Waldon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

So after looking at these a bit, I think we are running into the same or very similar false positives as gdb did here: [1]  All the errors I have looked through so far have been false positives.  Do we prefer fixing these (changing our code just to work around the warnings) or just disabling those warnings on eeloo?

Shawn


On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Shawn Waldon <[hidden email]> wrote:
eeloo was updated from fedora 26 to 28 since 26 end of life was at the beginning of June.  And I was on vacation for the end of last week, so no I haven't looked at fixing them yet.  I'll look at them this morning.

Shawn

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Ken Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Did someone update eeloo or change it's configuration somehow, resulting in lots of buildbot warnings? If so are you working on fixing them? It's been a bit yellow for a few days now.

Thanks!
Ken



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers







--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Ben Boeckel
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:48:23 -0400, Ken Martin wrote:
> I think that is a crazy warning gcc is producing and we should disable it.
> Way too many false positives with their approach. Can you change the
> compile flags on eeloo to remove that warning?

It's not a crazy warning. I saw warnings from the Catalyst builds after
updating `megas`. The one in vtkObjectFactory is a false positive, but
rewriting it to use `std::string` instead of `strncat` just makes the
code easier to read anyways. Errors in pv-forward.c.in were real and
(since it is C), `snprintf` is the better solution there.

Basically, `strncat` is a function that is really easy to screw up. We
really shouldn't use it in C code and certainly not at all in C++ code.

--Ben
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Ben Boeckel
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 09:08:22 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> It's not a crazy warning. I saw warnings from the Catalyst builds after
> updating `megas`. The one in vtkObjectFactory is a false positive, but
> rewriting it to use `std::string` instead of `strncat` just makes the
> code easier to read anyways. Errors in pv-forward.c.in were real and
> (since it is C), `snprintf` is the better solution there.
>
> Basically, `strncat` is a function that is really easy to screw up. We
> really shouldn't use it in C code and certainly not at all in C++ code.

So after a nightly run with the warnings back on, most are instances of
CMake's generated test harness code which has been fixed in 3.11.3.
Updating `eeloo` to that version should address those:

    https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/merge_requests/2115

The rest are fixed in this branch:

    https://gitlab.kitware.com/vtk/vtk/merge_requests/4647

--Ben
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Ken Martin
In reply to this post by Ben Boeckel
So... I am seeing lots of warning suddenly pop up on eeloo. As we clearly want to keep our buildbots green, so that people notice when they introduce new warnings or errors, these need to be either

1) promptly fixed

or if no one is opting for (1) then

2) suppressed until such as time that someone can fix them

Is anyone doing (1) ? If not then we need to do option (2) or some other creative idea ...



On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Ben Boeckel <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:48:23 -0400, Ken Martin wrote:
> I think that is a crazy warning gcc is producing and we should disable it.
> Way too many false positives with their approach. Can you change the
> compile flags on eeloo to remove that warning?

It's not a crazy warning. I saw warnings from the Catalyst builds after
updating `megas`. The one in vtkObjectFactory is a false positive, but
rewriting it to use `std::string` instead of `strncat` just makes the
code easier to read anyways. Errors in pv-forward.c.in were real and
(since it is C), `snprintf` is the better solution there.

Basically, `strncat` is a function that is really easy to screw up. We
really shouldn't use it in C code and certainly not at all in C++ code.

--Ben



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Shawn Waldon-2
Hi Ken,

We reverted the suppressions that were added in July on Friday and Ben has a branch [1] that fixes most of the warnings since they were real issues.

Shawn


On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Ken Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
So... I am seeing lots of warning suddenly pop up on eeloo. As we clearly want to keep our buildbots green, so that people notice when they introduce new warnings or errors, these need to be either

1) promptly fixed

or if no one is opting for (1) then

2) suppressed until such as time that someone can fix them

Is anyone doing (1) ? If not then we need to do option (2) or some other creative idea ...



On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Ben Boeckel <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:48:23 -0400, Ken Martin wrote:
> I think that is a crazy warning gcc is producing and we should disable it.
> Way too many false positives with their approach. Can you change the
> compile flags on eeloo to remove that warning?

It's not a crazy warning. I saw warnings from the Catalyst builds after
updating `megas`. The one in vtkObjectFactory is a false positive, but
rewriting it to use `std::string` instead of `strncat` just makes the
code easier to read anyways. Errors in pv-forward.c.in were real and
(since it is C), `snprintf` is the better solution there.

Basically, `strncat` is a function that is really easy to screw up. We
really shouldn't use it in C code and certainly not at all in C++ code.

--Ben



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.


_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Ken Martin
Awesome!

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Shawn Waldon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ken,

We reverted the suppressions that were added in July on Friday and Ben has a branch [1] that fixes most of the warnings since they were real issues.

Shawn


On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Ken Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
So... I am seeing lots of warning suddenly pop up on eeloo. As we clearly want to keep our buildbots green, so that people notice when they introduce new warnings or errors, these need to be either

1) promptly fixed

or if no one is opting for (1) then

2) suppressed until such as time that someone can fix them

Is anyone doing (1) ? If not then we need to do option (2) or some other creative idea ...



On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Ben Boeckel <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:48:23 -0400, Ken Martin wrote:
> I think that is a crazy warning gcc is producing and we should disable it.
> Way too many false positives with their approach. Can you change the
> compile flags on eeloo to remove that warning?

It's not a crazy warning. I saw warnings from the Catalyst builds after
updating `megas`. The one in vtkObjectFactory is a false positive, but
rewriting it to use `std::string` instead of `strncat` just makes the
code easier to read anyways. Errors in pv-forward.c.in were real and
(since it is C), `snprintf` is the better solution there.

Basically, `strncat` is a function that is really easy to screw up. We
really shouldn't use it in C code and certainly not at all in C++ code.

--Ben



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.




--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Ken Martin
In reply to this post by Ken Martin
And this highlights Utkarsh's good idea to have the toolkit specific buildbot scripts or some of them in the toolkit tree. That way we could turn on the flag for that topic to test it out without impacting the other topics in testing or master.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Ken Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
So... I am seeing lots of warning suddenly pop up on eeloo. As we clearly want to keep our buildbots green, so that people notice when they introduce new warnings or errors, these need to be either

1) promptly fixed

or if no one is opting for (1) then

2) suppressed until such as time that someone can fix them

Is anyone doing (1) ? If not then we need to do option (2) or some other creative idea ...



On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Ben Boeckel <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:48:23 -0400, Ken Martin wrote:
> I think that is a crazy warning gcc is producing and we should disable it.
> Way too many false positives with their approach. Can you change the
> compile flags on eeloo to remove that warning?

It's not a crazy warning. I saw warnings from the Catalyst builds after
updating `megas`. The one in vtkObjectFactory is a false positive, but
rewriting it to use `std::string` instead of `strncat` just makes the
code easier to read anyways. Errors in pv-forward.c.in were real and
(since it is C), `snprintf` is the better solution there.

Basically, `strncat` is a function that is really easy to screw up. We
really shouldn't use it in C code and certainly not at all in C++ code.

--Ben



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Utkarsh Ayachit
> And this highlights Utkarsh's good idea to have the toolkit specific buildbot scripts or some of them in the toolkit tree. That way we could turn on the flag for that topic to test it out without impacting the other topics in testing or master.

Indeed! Once Ben has recovered from the backlog, would be great to
prioritize it :).
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Ben Boeckel
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 14:52:11 -0400, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote:
> > And this highlights Utkarsh's good idea to have the toolkit specific
> > buildbot scripts or some of them in the toolkit tree. That way we
> > could turn on the flag for that topic to test it out without
> > impacting the other topics in testing or master.
>
> Indeed! Once Ben has recovered from the backlog, would be great to
> prioritize it :).

Would it not be better to have VTK discover and add warning flags during
configure rather than specifying any warning flags via `CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS`
in buildbot? This means the warnings also show up during normal
development.

--Ben
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: eeloo

Ken Martin
I guess it depends on which is more likely to get done. Moving some buildbot scripts into VTK sounds fairly easy. Creating CMake code to discover compiler flags and use them or not might take longer. Right now compiler warnings during normal development seems iffy as many third party headers emit warnings that without ctest's filtering we can get a lot of false positives. More so for ParaView than VTK but both of them suffer from it.

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Ben Boeckel <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 14:52:11 -0400, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote:
> > And this highlights Utkarsh's good idea to have the toolkit specific
> > buildbot scripts or some of them in the toolkit tree. That way we
> > could turn on the flag for that topic to test it out without
> > impacting the other topics in testing or master.
>
> Indeed! Once Ben has recovered from the backlog, would be great to
> prioritize it :).

Would it not be better to have VTK discover and add warning flags during
configure rather than specifying any warning flags via `CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS`
in buildbot? This means the warnings also show up during normal
development.

--Ben



--
Ken Martin PhD
Distinguished Engineer
Kitware Inc.
101 East Weaver Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
27510 USA

This communication, including all attachments, contains confidential and legally privileged information, and it is intended only for the use of the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error please notify us immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers