[llvm-commits] [PATCH] [Lit] Use multiprocessing instead of threading

[Daniel Dunbar]

My official opinion on Python version support is to maintain old
compatibility, unless it is causing large problems with the code. In this
case, I think it is easy enough to maintain both multiprocessing and
threading support (and it seems like we can't universally move to
multiprocessing) so I see a good argument for trying to move the base
supported version at the moment.

On the flip side, its also worth pointing out that users can also just grab
old versions of lit from the Python Package Index, barring the use of new
lit features in the test suite.

 - Daniel


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:
> > Sorry I missed this patch. I'm +10 for this change, as I believe
> > threading is much less useful than multiprocessing in this case for
> > true scaling. While we're at it, can we consider requiring Python 2.6?
> > It was released more than 4 years ago! I realize some systems may come
> > with an older Python out of the box, but can't we require users to
> > install Python 2.6 in order to run LLVM tests? Are there any major
> > platforms for which this is a problem?
>
> To bolster this point, Python **2.5** stopped receiving bugfixes
> (hence, security fixes) *years* ago
> <http://www.python.org/getit/releases/2.5.4/> (2008). Which of our
> users are using 2.4?
>
> -- Sean Silva
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20121130/9839296f/attachment.html>