mirror of
https://github.com/MobileGL-Dev/MobileGL
synced 2026-11-07 10:03:23 +09:00
swung0x48andClaude Opus 5
a54ae47ab9
CONTRACT-P6 §8.5 requires lk to publish its blast radius before it starts, because an earlier draft's ratchet baseline was wrong by a factor of three and a ratchet installed on the wrong number is red on its first CI run for reasons that have nothing to do with a leak. The itemisation is mechanical, per file, with the grep spelling stated: 250 seam-identifier references outside Transport/ across 23 files (127 production, 123 test), and 44 member-access sites that the regroup itself must rewrite, across 9 files - 17 of them in MG_IntegrationTest, which is why lk builds with the integration tests ON. The earlier build did not, and a missed edit there would have been green. THE CORRECTION. Measuring that radius turned up a mistake in c6, landed two commits ago. §8.3 and ILink.h both said lk should promote eventRingFull and eventDropped into the watermark group and called the result single-writer. eventRingFull has TWO writers: the server latches it with store(1) when SEG_EVENT fills (EventRing.h:140) and the CLIENT clears it with an exchange(0) on EVERY DRAIN (:200). Promoting it would put a per-drain read-modify-write by the client on the same cache line as appliedSeq - which the server release-stores every 64 records and the client's spin predicate reads 1e5-1e6 times a frame. That is new false sharing on the hottest line in the system, and it would land in exactly the numbers this package's gate has to hold constant. It is also the same class of error the earlier draft made with submittedSeq, one field over. So LinkProgress is now the four consumer-written watermarks and nothing else - genuinely single-writer - and the two flags stay in the doorbell/generation group, where mixed writers already live beside consumerParked/producerParked, crossing the seam through a separate EventFlags() accessor on its own line. The contract records the correction and its reasoning rather than quietly restating the rule. ALSO CORRECTED, from running the baseline suite: a6's link-experiment report said the silently-empty build stamp had "no log and no gate to say so". That is false. SessionHandshakeTest.cpp:140 asserts BuildStamp[0] != '\0' and :180 asserts that perturbing it changes the fingerprint, and BOTH GO RED in this configuration right now - the worktree's .git holds a Windows path WSL's git cannot resolve, so GIT_COMMIT_HASH_SHORT is "". The finding is therefore stronger, not weaker: the gate that catches it already exists and is already red. What is silent is the BUILD, and hs owes a named configure-time failure rather than a new gate. Baseline for lk, recorded: 3878 tests, two failures, both environmental and understood - the fingerprint one above, and PipeCatalogue.FrontendNeverTakes- AnApplierAddress, which walks up from cwd looking for MobileGL/MG_Impl and so fails for any out-of-source build directory. No behaviour change. The headers are still included by nothing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
工作笔记（原 ~/w7/notes/）
这一层是 MGPipe 各阶段的工作笔记原件：包计划（BRIEF-*.md）、契约草稿、集成者逐条裁定
（INTEGRATOR-DECISIONS-*.md）、只读审计、普查、设备记录、包任务书（TASK-*.md）与阶段报告。
它们此前只存在于一台机器的 ~/w7/notes/ 下。上层那几份文档（ROADMAP.md、
CURRENT_STAGE_PROGRESS.md、MEASUREMENTS.md …）大量引用它们——裁定编号、审计行号、
逐门数字的出处几乎全在这里。一份引用了几百次、却只存在于本地未跟踪目录的记录，等于没有记录。
所以整体移进仓库。
路径映射
~/w7/notes/<phase>/<file>.md → docs/Disaggregated/notes/<phase>/<file>.md
上层文档里凡写作 ~/w7/notes/... 的 .md 引用，都按这条规则读。
移进来的是什么，没移的是什么
| 移进来了 | 全部 .md，415 份，约 11 MB，目录结构原样保留 |
| 没有移 | 脚本（.sh / .py）、运行日志（.log / .out / .err）、普查与门的结果数据（.json / .txt / .tsv）、补丁、APK 与 .idsig、nm 转储 |
没移的那些仍在 ~/w7/notes/ 与各构建树下。它们是证据数据而不是文档：体积大、随每次运行
重新产生、且多数只在产生它的那台机器上有意义（绝对路径、设备序列号、构建目录）。上层文档引用
它们时给的是路径，不是内容。
两个需要知道的例外
- P6 的包计划已提升为正式文档：原
~/w7/notes/p6/BRIEF-P6.md现在是../P6-SPAWN-PLAN.md，本目录不再保留副本，避免两份同源文档各自漂移。 契约草稿同理，见../P6-CONTRACT-DRAFT.md。 recovered/是从失败的 workflow 运行里捞回来的材料（wf1…wf5），与同名阶段目录 可能重复，保留是因为其中几份是当时唯一的完整版本。查阶段记录请先看阶段目录。
不受 citation lint 管
CI 的文档引用 lint 只吃 docs/Disaggregated/*.md（非递归，.github/workflows/test.yml），
本目录不在其中，这是有意的：这些笔记的 file:line 是写在各自当时的代码头上的，拿今天的
HEAD 去解析必然大面积失败，而那不是错误——那是它们作为历史记录的正确状态。要核对某份笔记的
引用，用它自己声明的那个 revision：
python3 scripts/check_doc_citations.py --rev <当时的头> docs/Disaggregated/notes/<phase>/<file>.md