So far two bots have complained about 2.7 (but have 2.6): http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/clang-i686-cygwin-RA-centos6/builds/12836/steps/configure/logs/stdio http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-s390x-linux1/builds/12002/steps/configure/logs/stdio Should we just upgrade those bots or reduce the requirement to 2.6? On 12 December 2014 at 06:41, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote:> +1 > > My view on this is that lit is a testing tool. If someone is competent > enough to build LLVM and run the tests then they're probably competent > enough to build a newer version of Python if for some reason they > can't obtain pre-built version. > > I use lit outside of LLVM for several projects but I always use Python >>= 2.7 so it's not a problem for me. > > I'd also be in favour of bumping the required version higher and require 2.7
Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote on 12.12.2014 16:51:19:> So far two bots have complained about 2.7 (but have 2.6): > > http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/clang-i686-cygwin-RA-centos6/builds/12836/ > steps/configure/logs/stdio > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-s390x-linux1/builds/12002/ > steps/configure/logs/stdio > > Should we just upgrade those bots or reduce the requirement to 2.6?The bot runs on a SLES 11 machine, which has Python 2.6.9. I guess I could install an private version, but on the other hand, SLES 11 is still in wide-spread use (we use it e.g. on one of the main servers used for Power LLVM development ...). Bye, Ulrich
> The bot runs on a SLES 11 machine, which has Python 2.6.9. > > I guess I could install an private version, but on the other hand, > SLES 11 is still in wide-spread use (we use it e.g. on one of the > main servers used for Power LLVM development ...).So, I think Dan Liew's point is very relevant in here. This is a testing tool. It is a reasonable expectation that anyone wanting to develop llvm should be able to install python 2.7, no? Cheers, Rafael
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:> > So far two bots have complained about 2.7 (but have 2.6): > > > http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/clang-i686-cygwin-RA-centos6/builds/12836/steps/configure/logs/stdio > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-s390x-linux1/builds/12002/steps/configure/logs/stdio > > Should we just upgrade those bots or reduce the requirement to 2.6? >2.6 + py3k is a generally good combination for typical code and is easy to maintain. It is not possible to be both 2.5 and py3k compatible without huge hurdles. -- Sean Silva> > > On 12 December 2014 at 06:41, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > > +1 > > > > My view on this is that lit is a testing tool. If someone is competent > > enough to build LLVM and run the tests then they're probably competent > > enough to build a newer version of Python if for some reason they > > can't obtain pre-built version. > > > > I use lit outside of LLVM for several projects but I always use Python > >>= 2.7 so it's not a problem for me. > > > > I'd also be in favour of bumping the required version higher and require > 2.7 > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141212/c9e3fc5e/attachment.html>
Sent from my iPhone> On Dec 12, 2014, at 21:04, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> So far two bots have complained about 2.7 (but have 2.6): >> >> http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/clang-i686-cygwin-RA-centos6/builds/12836/steps/configure/logs/stdio >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-s390x-linux1/builds/12002/steps/configure/logs/stdio >> >> Should we just upgrade those bots or reduce the requirement to 2.6? > > 2.6 + py3k is a generally good combination for typical code and is easy to maintain. It is not possible to be both 2.5 and py3k compatible without huge hurdles. >Well, I am no Python expert either. I went with 2.7 because it was suggested and 4 years old software sounded old enough. If there are no objections I will downgrade the requirement back to 2.6 on Sunday (when I will be back at my computer).> -- Sean Silva > >> >> >> On 12 December 2014 at 06:41, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >> > +1 >> > >> > My view on this is that lit is a testing tool. If someone is competent >> > enough to build LLVM and run the tests then they're probably competent >> > enough to build a newer version of Python if for some reason they >> > can't obtain pre-built version. >> > >> > I use lit outside of LLVM for several projects but I always use Python >> >>= 2.7 so it's not a problem for me. >> > >> > I'd also be in favour of bumping the required version higher and require 2.7 >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141212/39af3fe1/attachment.html>
Just a reminder, these bots are still not operational because of this change. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:> > So far two bots have complained about 2.7 (but have 2.6): > > > http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/clang-i686-cygwin-RA-centos6/builds/12836/steps/configure/logs/stdio > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-s390x-linux1/builds/12002/steps/configure/logs/stdio > > Should we just upgrade those bots or reduce the requirement to 2.6? > > > On 12 December 2014 at 06:41, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > > +1 > > > > My view on this is that lit is a testing tool. If someone is competent > > enough to build LLVM and run the tests then they're probably competent > > enough to build a newer version of Python if for some reason they > > can't obtain pre-built version. > > > > I use lit outside of LLVM for several projects but I always use Python > >>= 2.7 so it's not a problem for me. > > > > I'd also be in favour of bumping the required version higher and require > 2.7 > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141214/f4da8c57/attachment.html>
On 14 December 2014 at 20:50, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote:> Just a reminder, these bots are still not operational because of this > change.Well, there were valid objections to lowering the requirement. If we can require the host compiler to be upgraded, it is probably ok to require python to be upgraded too, no? Cheers, Rafael