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>
Hi, On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:> > > 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.python 2.7 will be maintaned until 2020 (https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/76d43e52d978) so please leave it as-is. People should be updating.
>> Well, I am no Python expert either. I went with 2.7 because it was suggested >> and 4 years old software sounded old enough. > > python 2.7 will be maintaned until 2020 > (https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/76d43e52d978) so please leave it > as-is. People should be updating.I would also encourage making Python 2.7 the minimum. Distributions that move at glacial speed like RHEL6, CentOS6 and SLES11 can't even build LLVM out of the box due their out of date versions of gcc (4.4 I think) so I'm not convinced that arguments about avoiding "unnecessary hurdles for casual users to start getting involved in LLVM development" apply for these distributions. Anyone building LLVM on these platforms can only do so by investing effort into upgrading their C++ compiler. If they are willing to upgrade their compiler then I see no reason why they would resist installing a newer version of Python as well.