mirror of
https://github.com/open-goal/jak-project
synced 2026-09-12 04:49:19 -04:00
Alexander J. Semenuk
5d5e35fb9b
## Problem Windows builds break with a current local toolchain (Scoop LLVM 22.1.8, CMake 4.4.0, VS 2026), in two independent ways: 1. The build stops at curl's deliberate guard: `#error "no non-blocking method was found/used/set"` in `third-party/curl/lib/nonblock.c`. 2. From the second configure onward, `cmake --build` re-runs CMake in an endless loop (observed 42 consecutive reconfigure cycles in a single build). Likely the same mechanism behind the "endlessly building" VS 2026 note in `docs/setup/dev/vs.md`. ## Root cause 1. `third-party/curl/CMake/CurlTests.c` passes `int *` to `ioctlsocket()`, whose third parameter is `u_long *`. Clang 22 promotes `-Wincompatible-pointer-types` to a hard error in C, so the `HAVE_IOCTLSOCKET_FIONBIO` try_compile silently fails and `curl_config.h` never defines it. Upstream CI does not see this because the windows-2022 runner image ships an older LLVM. GCC 14 promotes the same warning to a hard error, which is very likely the `CurlTests.c.obj` failure reported from MSYS2 in open-goal/jak-project#3551. Upstream curl hit the identical problem with GCC 14 and fixed the probe in curl 8.8.0 (curl/curl#13578). 2. The root CMakeLists copies the build tree's `compile_commands.json` into `<src>/build/` for clangd using `configure_file()`, which registers its input as a configure dependency. CMake rewrites `compile_commands.json` late in every generation, after `CTestTestfile.cmake` and `cmake_install.cmake` (outputs of the same Ninja regen rule), so once the dependency is registered the rule is deterministically dirty and every `ninja` invocation re-runs CMake. A pristine first configure is safe (the file does not exist yet, so the `if(EXISTS ...)` guard skips the copy), which is why the loop looks machine- or IDE-specific. ## Fix 1. Per review, re-vendor `third-party/curl` at the `curl-8_21_0` tag (previously `curl-8_3_0`), which carries the upstream probe fix plus two years of upstream development; `vendor.yaml` updated to match. Adjustments the version jump forced: - curl 8.15 removed the native macOS Secure Transport backend (`CURL_USE_SECTRANSP`), so macOS now builds curl against OpenSSL like Linux. The two macOS workflows install Homebrew `openssl@3` and export `OPENSSL_ROOT_DIR` (keg-only), and the macOS setup docs gained the same two lines. - `CURL_BROTLI` / `CURL_ZSTD` switched to AUTO-detection in curl 8.10; pinned OFF to keep the previous no-compression behavior and avoid silently linking whatever the CI images happen to have. - curl's new top-level `BUILD_EXAMPLES` cache option (default ON) leaked into discord-rpc's identically named option and broke configure at a nonexistent `examples/send-presence` directory; pinned OFF ahead of the third-party subdirectories. The diff is dominated by the mechanical tag-tree swap under `third-party/curl` (linguist-vendored, collapsed in review). The hand-written changes are `CMakeLists.txt`, the two macOS workflows, `docs/setup/system/macos.md`, and `vendor.yaml`. 2. Swap `configure_file()` for `file(COPY ...)`: the same clangd copy with no configure dependency registered. (`file(COPY_FILE ... ONLY_IF_DIFFERENT)` would be cleaner still but requires CMake 3.21, above the declared `cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.10)`.) ## Test plan - [x] Fresh `cmake --preset Release-windows-clang` (LLVM 22, no cache seeding) completes and logs `Enabled SSL backends: Schannel`; the FIONBIO probe passes without the previous `#error` - [x] Full Windows Release build from scratch in the branch worktree (all 1422 targets) - [x] goalc-test suite: 1509 passed, 0 failed - [x] Second consecutive configure with `compile_commands.json` present: the regen rule in `build.ninja` has no `compile_commands.json` input; `<src>/build/compile_commands.json` is still refreshed for clangd - [x] Repeated `ninja` invocations after a full build no longer re-run CMake - [x] macOS Intel and ARM CI green (first exercise of the OpenSSL backend switch) --- I work off a self-hosted forge, so this GitHub account is quiet; the configure logs and ninja dirty-node traces from the investigation are available if anyone wants the raw data. (AI-assisted)
117 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
Vendored
Generated
117 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
Vendored
Generated
<!--
|
|
Copyright (C) Daniel Stenberg, <daniel@haxx.se>, et al.
|
|
|
|
SPDX-License-Identifier: curl
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
# Adding a new protocol?
|
|
|
|
Every once in a while, someone comes up with the idea of adding support for yet
|
|
another protocol to curl. After all, curl already supports 25 something
|
|
protocols and it is the Internet transfer machine for the world.
|
|
|
|
In the curl project we love protocols and we love supporting many protocols
|
|
and doing it well.
|
|
|
|
How do you proceed to add a new protocol and what are the requirements?
|
|
|
|
## No fixed set of requirements
|
|
|
|
This document is an attempt to describe things to consider. There is no
|
|
checklist of the twenty-seven things you need to cross off. We view the entire
|
|
effort as a whole and then judge if it seems to be the right thing - for now.
|
|
The more things that look right, fit our patterns and are done in ways that
|
|
align with our thinking, the better are the chances that we agree that
|
|
supporting this protocol is a grand idea.
|
|
|
|
## Mutual benefit is preferred
|
|
|
|
curl is not here for your protocol. Your protocol is not here for curl. The
|
|
best cooperation and end result occur when all involved parties mutually see
|
|
and agree that supporting this protocol in curl would be good for everyone.
|
|
Heck, for the world.
|
|
|
|
Consider "selling us" the idea that we need an implementation merged in curl,
|
|
to be fairly important. *Why* do we want curl to support this new protocol?
|
|
|
|
## Protocol requirements
|
|
|
|
### Client-side
|
|
|
|
The protocol implementation is for a client's side of a "communication
|
|
session".
|
|
|
|
### Transfer oriented
|
|
|
|
The protocol itself should be focused on *transfers*. Be it uploads or
|
|
downloads or both. It should at least be possible to view the transfers as
|
|
such, like we can view reading emails over POP3 as a download and sending
|
|
emails over SMTP as an upload.
|
|
|
|
If you cannot even shoehorn the protocol into a transfer focused view, then
|
|
you are up for a tough argument.
|
|
|
|
### URL
|
|
|
|
There should be a documented URL format. If there is an RFC for it there is no
|
|
question about it but the syntax does not have to be a published RFC. It could
|
|
be enough if it is already in use by other implementations.
|
|
|
|
If you make up the syntax in order to be able to propose it to curl, then you
|
|
are in a bad place. URLs are designed and defined for interoperability. There
|
|
should at least be a good chance that other clients and servers can be
|
|
implemented supporting the same URL syntax and work the same or similar way.
|
|
|
|
URLs work on registered 'schemes'. There is a register of [all officially
|
|
recognized
|
|
schemes](https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml). If
|
|
your protocol is not in there, is it really a protocol we want?
|
|
|
|
### Wide and public use
|
|
|
|
The protocol shall already be used or have an expectation of getting used
|
|
widely. Experimental protocols are better off worked on in experiments first,
|
|
to prove themselves before they are adopted by curl.
|
|
|
|
## Code
|
|
|
|
Of course the code needs to be written, provided, licensed agreeably and it
|
|
should follow our code guidelines and review comments have to be dealt with.
|
|
If the implementation needs third party code, that third party code should not
|
|
have noticeably lesser standards than the curl project itself.
|
|
|
|
## Tests
|
|
|
|
As much of the protocol implementation as possible needs to be verified by
|
|
curl test cases. We must have the implementation get tested by CI jobs,
|
|
torture tests and more.
|
|
|
|
We have experienced many times in the past how new implementations were brought
|
|
to curl and immediately once the code had been merged, the originator vanished
|
|
from the face of the earth. That is fine, but we need to take the necessary
|
|
precautions so when it happens we are still fine.
|
|
|
|
Our test infrastructure is powerful enough to test almost every protocol - but
|
|
it might require a bit of an effort to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
## Documentation
|
|
|
|
We cannot assume that users are particularly familiar with details and
|
|
peculiarities of the protocol. It needs documentation.
|
|
|
|
Maybe it even needs some internal documentation so that the developers who try
|
|
to debug something five years from now can figure out functionality a little
|
|
easier.
|
|
|
|
The protocol specification itself should be freely available without requiring
|
|
a non-disclosure agreement or similar.
|
|
|
|
## Do not compare
|
|
|
|
We are constantly raising the bar and we are constantly improving the project.
|
|
A lot of things we did in the past would not be acceptable if done today.
|
|
Therefore, you might be tempted to use shortcuts or "hacks" you can spot
|
|
other - existing - protocol implementations have used, but there is nothing to
|
|
gain from that. The bar has been raised. Former "cheats" may not tolerated
|
|
anymore.
|