llvm dev - Dec 2012 - [LLVMdev] Minimum Python Version

> If there was a concrete need to move to a newer Python version in order to
> make lit Python 3 compatible, I would view that as a good reason to move
> forward.
The concrete need is that users on platforms which ship with Python 3
by default have to put in a workaround (install python2 and patch
their $PATH) just to run the test suite. Off the top of my head I know
this includes Ubuntu 12.10 and Arch Linux.

-- Sean Silva

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org>
wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> If there was a concrete need to move to a newer Python version in order to
> make lit Python 3 compatible, I would view that as a good reason to move
> forward.
>
> I have little experience writing Python 2 & 3 compatible code, so
I'd need
> to see the patch to make lit Python 3 compatible before I could comment
> more.
>
>  - Daniel
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu>
wrote:
>>
>> So, I just tried, and basically it's difficult to make progress due
to
>> the print statements (since they induce an immediate syntax error).
>> Since 2.4 doesn't support `from __future__ import print_function`,
the
>> only alternative I guess is shimming in a print function. This is a
>> maintenance effort that I don't want to do right now (and, TBQH, I
>> feel that the proper maintainer should be responsible for).
>>
>> ddunbar, how does this weight against your "causing large problems
>> with the code" criterion for supporting older versions? As I
believe
>> that you are the author and maintainer of lit, are you planning on
>> fixing this compatibility problem?
>>
>> -- Sean Silva
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu>
wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at
grosser.es>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Why don't you give it a try. This will also help us to
understand where
>> >> the biggest
>> >> problems are and if the necessary changes make supporting
python 2.4
>> >> hard.
>> >
>> > I'll see what I can do. Since on that machine I only have
python3 and
>> > python2.7, I can't easily verify that my changes still operate
on the
>> > desired 2.4 and 2.5.
>> >
>> > -- Sean Silva
>
>

Hi Sean,

On 04/12/12 18:36, Sean Silva wrote:
>> If there was a concrete need to move to a newer Python version in order
to
>> make lit Python 3 compatible, I would view that as a good reason to
move
>> forward.
>
> The concrete need is that users on platforms which ship with Python 3
> by default have to put in a workaround (install python2 and patch
> their $PATH) just to run the test suite. Off the top of my head I know
> this includes Ubuntu 12.10 and Arch Linux.
I'm running ubuntu 12.10 and the system python is 2.7.3.

Ciao, Duncan.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>
wrote:
> I'm running ubuntu 12.10 and the system python is 2.7.3.
Interesting, they must have changed that late in the release cycle; I
swear it was planned (maybe the plan was just "have python3 available
by default"). IMO this a much lower priority then, since AFAIK most
people don't run crack-head insane bleeding-edge distributions like
Arch Linux (which I guess is the only distribution I know of which
ships /usr/bin/python as py3k by default).

(Coincidentally?) there has been a recent bug report where a developer
"in the wild" was running Python 3.3
<http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14507>; on windows, of all
places.

-- Sean Silva