Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "python_additional_versions".
2013 Jun 21
1
[LLVMdev] Patch for the fact that all llvm python scripts are python 2.x compatible.
...a/CMakeLists.txt b/CMakeLists.txt
index bb70f15..e327427 100644
--- a/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ set(LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE
"${LLVM_HOST_TRIPLE}" CACHE STRING
set(TARGET_TRIPLE "${LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE}")
include(HandleLLVMOptions)
-
+set(Python_ADDITIONAL_VERSIONS 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4)
# Verify that we can find a Python interpreter,
include(FindPythonInterp)
if( NOT PYTHONINTERP_FOUND )
--
此致
礼
罗勇刚
Yours
sincerely,
Yonggang Luo
2014 Dec 15
4
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Requiring python 2.6
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
2016 Feb 24
0
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
2016 Feb 24
3
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