Skip to content

Fixing toolchain executable not found error for build.py #3587

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 26, 2017
Merged

Fixing toolchain executable not found error for build.py #3587

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 26, 2017

Conversation

bridadan
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Commit 19d56fd removed the default file
paths for the toolchains. This was done under the assumption that the
top-level compile scripts were properly checking that the toolchain
executable was availble. The build.py script was doing this in the wrong
place. This commit rearranges the script a bit so the check is performed
properly.

Should fix #3581.

Status

READY

Migrations

If this PR changes any APIs or behaviors, give a short description of what API users should do when this PR is merged.

NO

Todos

  • Tests

Notes to reviewers

@toyowata - Could you please confirm that I've fixed your issue?
@theotherjimmy - General code review please!

@bridadan bridadan mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2017
Closed
@bridadan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/morph test

theotherjimmy
theotherjimmy reviewed Jan 13, 2017
View reviewed changes
tools/build.py
% (toolchain, search_path))
for target in targets:
for toolchain in toolchains:
if not TOOLCHAIN_CLASSES[toolchain].check_executable():
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we do these checks all up front? to fail fast.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes we can!

@bridadan
Fixing toolchain executable not found error for build.py
938ac93 
Commit 19d56fd removed the default file
paths for the toolchains. This was done under the assumption that the
top-level compile scripts were properly checking that the toolchain
executable was availble. The build.py script was doing this in the wrong
place. This commit rearranges the script a bit so the check is performed
properly.
@bridadan bridadan force-pushed the fix_build_script_toolchain_check branch from 8ea389c to 938ac93 Compare January 13, 2017 20:13
@mbed-bot
Copy link

Result: SUCCESS

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test

Output

mbed Build Number: 1396

All builds and test passed!

@bridadan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gonna restart the bot since I pushed another change.

/morph test

@bridadan
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is the new error printed by the tools when the toolchain executable is not found:

$ python tools\build.py -m LPC1768 -t ARM
usage: build.py [-h] [-m MCU] [-t TOOLCHAIN] [--color] [--cflags CFLAGS]
                [--asmflags ASMFLAGS] [--ldflags LDFLAGS] [-c]
                [--profile PROFILE] [--source SOURCE_DIR] [--build BUILD_DIR]
                [--no-archive] [-r] [--rpc] [-e] [-U] [-u] [-d] [-F] [-b]
                [--cpputest] [-D MACROS] [-S] [-f GENERAL_FILTER_REGEX]
                [--cppcheck] [-j JOBS] [-N ARTIFACT_NAME] [-v] [--silent] [-x]
build.py: error: Could not find executable for ARM.
Currently set search path: No path set

@mbed-bot
Copy link

Result: SUCCESS

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test

Output

mbed Build Number: 1401

All builds and test passed!

toyowata
toyowata approved these changes Jan 14, 2017
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@toyowata toyowata left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I tested this locally and worked fine in my environment. Thanks.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Jan 16, 2017

@mazimkhan @AlessandroA uvisor tests are failing for some newer PR?

/retest uvisor

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Jan 16, 2017

continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-head is green, did not report probably the result back...

@mazimkhan
Copy link

@AlessandroA @Patater Failing tests:

20:34:34 | K64F-GCC_ARM | K64F          | k64f_gcc_arm_r_1_1_2 | dma_serial_read_async_with_dma                                     | 0      | 1      | FAIL   | 0.0                |
20:34:34 | K64F-GCC_ARM | K64F          | k64f_gcc_arm_r_1_1_2 | dma_serial_read_async_without_dma                                  | 0      | 1      | FAIL   | 0.0                |
20:34:34 | K64F-GCC_ARM | K64F          | k64f_gcc_arm_r_1_1_2 | dma_serial_write_async_with_dma                                    | 0      | 1      | FAIL   | 0.2                |
20:34:34 | K64F-GCC_ARM | K64F          | k64f_gcc_arm_r_1_1_2 | dma_serial_write_async_without_dma                                 | 0      | 1      | FAIL   | 0.0                |
20:34:34 | K64F-GCC_ARM | K64F          | k64f_gcc_arm_r_1_1_2 | page_heap_one_page_test_invalid_access_after_freeing_2             | 0      | 1      | FAIL   | 0.0                |
20:34:34 | K64F-GCC_ARM | K64F          | k64f_gcc_arm_r_1_1_2 | page_heap_one_page_test_invalid_access_after_freeing_3             | 0      | 1      | FAIL   | 0.2                |

@Patater
Copy link
Contributor

Patater commented Jan 16, 2017

@mazimkhan Those tests are expected to fail for now.

@mazimkhan mazimkhan mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2017
Merged
@mazimkhan
Copy link

@sg- what should we do about expected failure?

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Jan 16, 2017

@sg- what should we do about expected failure?

Results must be green,thus we either fix tests now or remove those from being tested for now.

@mazimkhan
Copy link

retest uvisor

@mazimkhan
Copy link

@Patater your PR https://github.com/ARMmbed/uvisor-tests/pull/85 doesnot fix the failing tests.

@mazimkhan
Copy link

retest uvisor

1 similar comment
@mazimkhan
Copy link

retest uvisor

@mazimkhan
Copy link

@0xc0170 finally it passed!

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Jan 17, 2017

@0xc0170 finally it passed!

+1

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit b9557ae into ARMmbed:master Jan 26, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@theotherjimmy theotherjimmy theotherjimmy approved these changes

@0xc0170 0xc0170 0xc0170 approved these changes

@toyowata toyowata toyowata approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
release-version: 5.3.4
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ARM and uARM build broken by mbed_lib_rev133 release
8 participants
@bridadan @mbed-bot @0xc0170 @mazimkhan @Patater @theotherjimmy @toyowata @adbridge