similar to: Migrate utils/ Python 2 scripts to Python 3

Personally, every machine I work with only has Python 2.7. Justin is correct that there is a non-trivial amount of effort to convert the bots. Python 3 is wonderful. But, a Python 3 dependency seems like one burden that could be avoided. We have already made that trade-off in the past, for example by only using standard python packages, so there is less/nothing to pip install when getting

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Thanks for the information. Then how about standalone scripts (many > one-file) like utils/update_check_tests.py that are unrelated to lit > or other important infrastructure? Can they be changed from > `#!/usr/bin/python2.7` to `#!/usr/bin/python3` shebang? > No. Every

Does Python 3 have feature we want to use in LLVM codebase, and no workaround there? If so, please give some examples. I think that makes the discussion more concrete. 2018-01-30 4:46 GMT+08:00 Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hi LLVM-Devs, > > I noticed that many Python scripts under utils/ have a shebang of > `#!/usr/bin/python` (which is a symlink

+1 to what Chris and Justin said. I see no strong benefit to moving to python3 and substantial costs. Philip On 01/30/2018 11:20 AM, Chris Matthews via llvm-dev wrote: > Personally, every machine I work with only has Python 2.7. > > Justin is correct that there is a non-trivial amount of effort to > convert the bots. > > Python 3 is wonderful. But, a Python 3 dependency seems

Hi Fangrui, for what it's worth regarding lldb, Zachary Turner has already done a lot of work to make the majority of its python code (most importantly, its testsuite) work with Python 3 as well as Python 2. J > On Jan 29, 2018, at 12:46 PM, Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi LLVM-Devs, > > I noticed that many Python scripts under

Since we seem to be voting, I'll -1 it. It's pretty ridiculous to have a system without Python 3 in 2018 and anyone supplying such a monstrosity should be encouraged to stop it. Tim. On 1 February 2018 at 05:20, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +1 to what Chris and Justin said. > > I see no strong benefit to moving to python3 and substantial

+1 from my for changing LLVMs minimum requirements (for compiling llvm) to python3 and dropping python2 support. In case of lit we probably need to keep the code in a way that works with python 2 and 3 though as that will affect various projects outside of core llvm that started adopting it. - Matthias > On Jan 29, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Jason Molenda via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Thanks for the information. Then how about standalone scripts (many one-file) like utils/update_check_tests.py that are unrelated to lit or other important infrastructure? Can they be changed from `#!/usr/bin/python2.7` to `#!/usr/bin/python3` shebang? On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > Personally, every machine I work with only has

You might want to tell that to the Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor that everybody is using... :) -Dimitry > On 1 Feb 2018, at 06:28, Tim Northover via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Since we seem to be voting, I'll -1 it. It's pretty ridiculous to have > a system without Python 3 in 2018 and anyone supplying such a > monstrosity

The suggested way to do this on OSX is using env: #!/usr/bin/env python3 > On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the information. Then how about standalone scripts (many >> one-file) like

Sadly, neither the latest version of RedHat (released in 2014), nor the latest version of macOS (released in 2017) have any version of python3 available with the default system. On the other hand, TTBOMK, every system that does have python3 available also makes python2.7 also easily available. LLVM is not a primarily python project, so keeping up with the latest features of the language, and

As mentioned in https://docs.python.org/3/using/unix.html#miscellaneous, for Python 3 the shebang line should be: #!/usr/bin/env python3 For Python 2 the shebang line should probably be: #!/usr/bin/env python2 but as Python 3 should never install its executable under the name "python", you could also let it stay at: #!/usr/bin/env python instead. -Dimitry > On 1 Feb 2018, at

Nope. Regarding "python" potentially pointing to python3: Arch Linux has done that for years. That unilateral decision on their part was widely-decried as a mistake at the time, and spawned the python doc you reference saying that shouldn't be done. However, Fedora is now making noises about doing the same, in a few years, after driving a change in the upstream recommendation.

On 2018-01-31, Chris Matthews wrote: >The suggested way to do this on OSX is using env: > >#!/usr/bin/env python3 Sorry, I use `#!/usr/bin/env python3` in my patch but used #!/usr/bin/python3 in the email :) > >> On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Fāng-ruì Sòng via

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:29 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:24 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Would you like to conduct the conversation here, or on the review thread? (I lean

On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >I see the GNU ld behavior as a limitation, not as a feature, as Peter Smith >also pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D86762. While it can be argued >that there are certain cases where it can help detect layering >violations as you mentioned in your change, I'm not sure how valuable that >is in practice. Every case I've encountered so

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Would you like to conduct the conversation here, or on the review thread? (I lean towards having them here, but don't mind if folks feel like it keeps the noise down & want to more post a notice saying "hey, here's this thing, if you're interested, go discuss it over there" -

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Fangrui > Song via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 10:18 PM > To: Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][LLVM] New Constant type for > representing function PLT

On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:35 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev < >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >> >I see the GNU ld behavior as a limitation, not as a feature, as Peter >> Smith >> >also pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D86762. While it can be >> argued

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:17 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:05 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > > > > I got replies from Nick Clifton and Michael Matz: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-November/114116.html > > (and its reply). > > I have mentioned (a) the difficulty