Chris Matthews via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-24 02:55 UTC
[llvm-dev] Can lit be upgraded to assume Python 2.7?
This sounds like a good idea to me! I can’t think of any common platform where you can’t get 2.7. Lets get rid of that legacy cruft!> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > Seems reasonable to me. Chris? > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 8:40 PM Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > In the root llvm/CMakeLists.txt we have: > > if( ${PYTHON_VERSION_STRING} VERSION_LESS 2.7 ) > message(FATAL_ERROR "Python 2.7 or newer is required") > endif() > > But lit seems to still be stuck in a Python 2.5 world. For example, detectCPUs is redundant now that we have multiprocessing.cpu_count() (multiprocessing requires >=2.6). And there are a bunch of other Python 2.5 workarounds floating around inside lit. I'm actually not sure if there are 2.6 workarounds. > > Anyway, does anybody know if somehow, despite the CMake check, lit is still being run with Python <2.7 on any bots or anywhere? If not, I'd like to make a couple cleanup patches. > > -- Sean Silva > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160223/591bc743/attachment.html>
Sean Silva via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-24 19:49 UTC
[llvm-dev] Can lit be upgraded to assume Python 2.7?
Great! I'll circle around to this at some point. Despite the "obvious" nature of it I still am wary of underestimating the cruftiness of the buildbots, so I'll probably do it some time at night when the bots are mostly green so that I can easily see if any bots *are* broken by this. -- Sean Silva On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote:> This sounds like a good idea to me! I can’t think of any common platform > where you can’t get 2.7. Lets get rid of that legacy cruft! > > > On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > Seems reasonable to me. Chris? > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 8:40 PM Sean Silva via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> In the root llvm/CMakeLists.txt we have: >> >> if( ${PYTHON_VERSION_STRING} VERSION_LESS 2.7 ) >> message(FATAL_ERROR "Python 2.7 or newer is required") >> endif() >> >> But lit seems to still be stuck in a Python 2.5 world. For example, >> detectCPUs is redundant now that we have multiprocessing.cpu_count() >> (multiprocessing requires >=2.6). And there are a bunch of other Python 2.5 >> workarounds floating around inside lit. I'm actually not sure if there are >> 2.6 workarounds. >> >> Anyway, does anybody know if somehow, despite the CMake check, lit is >> still being run with Python <2.7 on any bots or anywhere? If not, I'd like >> to make a couple cleanup patches. >> >> -- Sean Silva >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160224/a83dc101/attachment.html>
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-24 20:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] Can lit be upgraded to assume Python 2.7?
On 24 February 2016 at 19:49, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Great! I'll circle around to this at some point. Despite the "obvious" > nature of it I still am wary of underestimating the cruftiness of the > buildbots, so I'll probably do it some time at night when the bots are > mostly green so that I can easily see if any bots *are* broken by this.While at it, can you call "env python2" in the shebang line? It makes it a lot easier for Python3 systems, like Arch. cheers, --renato
Sean Silva via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-26 22:20 UTC
[llvm-dev] Can lit be upgraded to assume Python 2.7?
Still haven't gotten around to this, but just now I've randomly run into `set(Python_ADDITIONAL_VERSIONS 2.7 2.6 2.5)` in compiler-rt/CMakeLists.txt I assume that can be nuked too? -- Sean Silva On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:> Great! I'll circle around to this at some point. Despite the "obvious" > nature of it I still am wary of underestimating the cruftiness of the > buildbots, so I'll probably do it some time at night when the bots are > mostly green so that I can easily see if any bots *are* broken by this. > > -- Sean Silva > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> > wrote: > >> This sounds like a good idea to me! I can’t think of any common platform >> where you can’t get 2.7. Lets get rid of that legacy cruft! >> >> >> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Seems reasonable to me. Chris? >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 8:40 PM Sean Silva via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> In the root llvm/CMakeLists.txt we have: >>> >>> if( ${PYTHON_VERSION_STRING} VERSION_LESS 2.7 ) >>> message(FATAL_ERROR "Python 2.7 or newer is required") >>> endif() >>> >>> But lit seems to still be stuck in a Python 2.5 world. For example, >>> detectCPUs is redundant now that we have multiprocessing.cpu_count() >>> (multiprocessing requires >=2.6). And there are a bunch of other Python 2.5 >>> workarounds floating around inside lit. I'm actually not sure if there are >>> 2.6 workarounds. >>> >>> Anyway, does anybody know if somehow, despite the CMake check, lit is >>> still being run with Python <2.7 on any bots or anywhere? If not, I'd like >>> to make a couple cleanup patches. >>> >>> -- Sean Silva >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160226/eb6c8582/attachment.html>