[PATCH 1/1] RSB: Mitigate too short error reports
joel at rtems.org
Mon Jan 16 17:27:20 UTC 2023
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 8:46 AM Frank Kühndel <
frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> On 1/16/23 01:02, Chris Johns wrote:
> > Subject:
> > Re: [PATCH 1/1] RSB: Mitigate too short error reports
> > From:
> > Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org>
> > Date:
> > 1/16/23, 01:02
> > To:
> > Frank Kühndel <frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de>, devel at rtems.org
> > On 22/12/2022 9:09 pm, Frank Kühndel wrote:
> >> On 12/21/22 00:06, Chris Johns wrote:
> >>> On 21/12/2022 3:44 am, Frank Kuehndel wrote:
> >>>> From: Frank Kühndel<frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de>
> >>>> Close #4642
> >>>> ---
> >>>> source-builder/sb/ereport.py | 4 ++++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>> diff --git a/source-builder/sb/ereport.py
> >>>> index d8fb5f6..d391917 100755
> >>>> --- a/source-builder/sb/ereport.py
> >>>> +++ b/source-builder/sb/ereport.py
> >>>> @@ -55,6 +55,10 @@ def generate(name, opts, header = None, footer =
> >>>> with open(name, 'w') as l:
> >>>> l.write(os.linesep.join(r))
> >>>> log.notice(' See error report: %s' % (name))
> >>>> + log.notice(' (Hint: The first error may be in front of
> a '
> >>>> + 'line containing\n'
> >>>> + ' "Error 1" [GNU make] and may be only in the whole
> log '
> >>> Is this too specific to GNU make? What ifs a package uses cmake or
> >>> else?
> >> As the text indicates, this is specific to GNU make. For those using
> >> else reading this text will still hint that the first error may not be
> in the
> >> end of the report "and may be only in the whole log".
> >> Another weak point in this text is that by far not all errors
> originating from
> >> "make". Yet, the true trouble is the original "See error report: %s"
> where it
> >> can sometimes happen that the error is not in this "error report" at
> >> I found it difficult to find a wording which is short, clear and
> helpful to the
> >> reader and at the same time not confusing. I am not perfectly happy
> with the
> >> notice above. I just found it a reasonable compromise.
> >> If you prefer more generic texts - such as the examples below - I will
> send a
> >> new patch with the suggested test.
> >> "Hint: The first error may be far way from the end of the
> >> report and in cases can only be found in the whole build log."
> >> "Hint: The error is most likely in the error report otherwise
> >> see the whole build log [--log option]."
> >> If you find any such change might cause more confusion than it might be
> >> I think it better to close this bug than to try to fix it.
> > I think all you have written is valid and I have found the wording
> > There will never be a robust error message scanner or a simple full
> proof way to
> > find errors. The parallel builds makes tracking the errors difficult and
> > point of error and end of the build a long distance apart.
I usually search the logs for "rror:" and that's the first time something
whether by make or gcc or whatever. It may not be the root cause but it gets
me to the first report.
Cutting any of these long reports down is always going to be possible to
cut out the real issue. It's ok because it it's more than just an odd setup
issue on the host, someone will have to build locally to reproduce the
And then they will get the full output.
> > As a result I question the value of the report and wonder if it should be
> > removed. The report adds overhead to the build as the logging process
> needs to
> > maintain a buffer of lines that is always updating. Your attention and
> > around this feature highlights how problematic it is so maybe it is
> simpler and
> > better to remove it and we leave users to find the error in the log file.
> > I am happy to accept the report has not worked as a feature, remove it
> and in
> > the process we recover some overheads in the logging area of the RSB?
> I am not against the error report and I do not say it is a useless
> feature. It is just that I found the message ' See error report: %s'
> confusing in those cases where the report does not contain the error
> at all because it is too short (the error report consists simply of the
> last 400 lines of the build log).
> To answer your question, I believe there is always a build log - no
> matter whether the `--log` option is used or not. In this case, removing
> the error report and pointing to the build log in case of error (for
> example like ' See build log: %s') would certainly solve all my concerns.
But on the build@ reports, it is nice to have something. Many times it
is possible to diagnose the issue. Just in the past fifteen minutes, there
was one which having the log made it clear that CentOS 7 and other older
distributions need to use a newer GCC. Having the info in the build@
message was more than enough to diagnose that.
> On the other hand, implementing the error report took time and was
> certainly done with good reason. I do not feel like I should be the one
> deciding to remove it. Changing the message or simply closing
> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4642 would also be perfectly valid for me.
Changing the message to encourage --log or whatever guidance for
debug. I don't even mind it pointing to a URL with guidance on debugging
RSB build issues.
> Greetings ... and a happy new year to you
> embedded brains GmbH
> Herr Frank KÜHNDEL
> Dornierstr. 4
> 82178 Puchheim
> email: frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de
> phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 23
> mobile: +49-176-15 22 06 - 11
> fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
> Registernummer: HRB 157899
> Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
> Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel