-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 342
fix double adding of additional_files_0... #1901
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.
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should still run through per port customization though. Maybe add a testcase which shows the issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think this comment is a bit misleading, i will remove it
this is my first change in this project, and i feel a bit uncomfortable to do the change by myself as i have not a complete picture in the project, for me the PR was more about to show the issue, but this was going wrong in this case :D
So i understand your comment. Per port customizations should be untouched by the change. Adding a test is hard as nearly no function is accessible for the test..
The problem is actual really simple.
When using a response file you can install the same port for different triplets
gtest
gtest:our-x86-windows-static
the first entry use the triplet from vcpkg command, the second the port mentioned in the response file. If the triplet has now a VCPKG_HASH_ADDITIONAL_FILES variable, the first entry was adding the VCPKG_HASH_ADDITIONAL_FILES to the
port_dir_cache_entry & to the abi_tag_entries +1422 to +1423
-> as i'm not 100% sure perhaps it is better to actual add it to port_dir_cache_entry.abi_entries
between +1472 to
this code is doing this as well, so actual the action for the first port is doubled (can be easily retested with some port have VCPKG_HASH_ADDITIONAL_FILES)
you will get additional_file_0 xxx 2 times, always
the second port now runs the code again in same vcpkg.exe instance, as the port_dir_cache_entry is already filled, the removed code was skipped and was resulting in additional_file_0 xxx once
This is a problem with my cache
as now
vcpkg install gtest:our-x64-windows-static --overlay-triplet=xxx
vcpkg install gtest:our-x86-windows-static --overlay-triplet=xxx
and
vcpkg install --triplet=our-x64-windows-static --overlay-triplet=xxx @responefile
results in different abi for gtest:our-x86-windows-static