[Driver] -enable-batch-mode implies -continue-building-after-errors #16521
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
davidungar
suggested changes
May 11, 2018
lib/Driver/Driver.cpp
Outdated
| @@ -703,6 +703,17 @@ Driver::buildCompilation(const ToolChain &TC, | |||
| OI.CompilerMode = computeCompilerMode(*TranslatedArgList, Inputs, BatchMode); | |||
| buildOutputInfo(TC, *TranslatedArgList, BatchMode, Inputs, OI); | |||
|
|
|||
| // Note: Batch mode handling of serialized diagnostics requires that all | |||
| // batches get to run. (This behavior could be limited to only when serialized | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be valuable to explain a bit more about why all batches get to run, either here, or somewhere else with a pointer to here. It would save someone a lot of head-scratching someday.
lib/Driver/Driver.cpp
Outdated
| // to go on to compilation of source files, and if compilation of source files | ||
| // fails, we shouldn't try to link. Instead, we'd want to let all jobs finish | ||
| // but not schedule any new ones. | ||
| ContinueBuildingAfterErrors |= BatchMode; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ContinueBuildingAfterErrors isn't used before this, so how about moving the earlier code that reads the argument and sets it down to here? That way it could be a const bool instead of just a bool.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, consider adding an assertion ContinueBuildingAfterErrors || !BatchMode around line 531 in Compilation.cpp
where it says return Comp.ContinueBuildingAfterErrors ? ... : ...
The logic in 46b8ad3 to avoid putting certain diagnostics into serialized diagnostic files only makes sense if 1. every diagnostic emitted in file A.swift while processing a different file B.swift would be emitted if we processed A.swift on its own 2. we actually do process A.swift on its own in the same build, or have previously done an incremental build and produced the same diagnostic But the latter isn't actually guaranteed: if one batch job exits with a failure status, the driver will exit as well, assuming there's no point in continuing. Fortunately, we do have a flag that overrides this behavior, -continue-building-after-errors. (As noted in the patch, -continue-building-after-errors isn't *exactly* what we want. But it's conservatively correct.)
jrose-apple
force-pushed
the
but-it-is-not-this-day
branch
from
2b9c230 to
f9fd6a3
Compare
|
Updated! @swift-ci Please smoke test |
jrose-apple
added a commit
to jrose-apple/swift
that referenced
this pull request
May 11, 2018
…wiftlang#16521) The logic in 46b8ad3 to avoid putting certain diagnostics into serialized diagnostic files only makes sense if 1. every diagnostic emitted in file A.swift while processing a different file B.swift would be emitted if we processed A.swift on its own 2. we actually do process A.swift on its own in the same build, or have previously done an incremental build and produced the same diagnostic But the latter isn't actually guaranteed: if one batch job exits with a failure status, the driver will exit as well, assuming there's no point in continuing. Fortunately, we do have a flag that overrides this behavior, -continue-building-after-errors. (As noted in the patch, -continue-building-after-errors isn't *exactly* what we want. But it's conservatively correct.) (cherry picked from commit 606ee29)
jrose-apple
added a commit
to jrose-apple/swift
that referenced
this pull request
May 11, 2018
…wiftlang#16521) The logic in 46b8ad3 to avoid putting certain diagnostics into serialized diagnostic files only makes sense if 1. every diagnostic emitted in file A.swift while processing a different file B.swift would be emitted if we processed A.swift on its own 2. we actually do process A.swift on its own in the same build, or have previously done an incremental build and produced the same diagnostic But the latter isn't actually guaranteed: if one batch job exits with a failure status, the driver will exit as well, assuming there's no point in continuing. Fortunately, we do have a flag that overrides this behavior, -continue-building-after-errors. (As noted in the patch, -continue-building-after-errors isn't *exactly* what we want. But it's conservatively correct.) (cherry picked from commit 606ee29)
This was referenced May 11, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The logic in #16485 to avoid putting certain diagnostics into serialized diagnostic files only makes sense if
every diagnostic emitted in file A.swift while processing a different file B.swift would be emitted if we processed A.swift on its own
we actually do process A.swift on its own in the same build, or have previously done an incremental build and produced the same diagnostic
But the latter isn't actually guaranteed: if one batch job exits with a failure status, the driver will exit as well, assuming there's no point in continuing. Fortunately, we do have a flag that overrides this behavior,
-continue-building-after-errors.(As noted in the patch,
-continue-building-after-errorsisn't exactly what we want. But it's conservatively correct.)