[cfe-dev] Issues with https://reviews.llvm.org/D26082

[Jonathan Coe via cfe-dev]

On 13 January 2017 at 14:46, Jonathan Coe <jbcoe at me.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 13 January 2017 at 10:53, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12 January 2017 at 20:52, Jonathan Coe via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Issues have been reported in https://reviews.llvm.org/D26082 which I
>> have
>> > locally reproduced.
>> >
>> > What's the best course of action?
>>
>>
FWIW I'd be in favour of reverting this patch. Broken python3 support seems
worse than no python3 support.


> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> This is before we branched, so whatever action we take need to be
>> back-ported to the 4.0 branch.
>>
>> Adding Hans FYI.
>>
>>
>> > I can revert the change until problems are fixed. I don't think
>> libclang's
>> > Python bindings tests get run as part of CI.
>>
>> Is this affecting buildbots or some kind of external CI?
>>
>
> I've not seen any failures due to this, I don't think python tests get run.
>
>
>>
>> It seems to me that we should test Python's bindings as a standard CI
>> run, if they're added in Clang in any way.
>>
>>
> Sounds like a good idea, I'd be keen to be involved with this.
>
>
>> I'm not proposing running Python itself, as that can be hard to match
>> system expectations, but some kind of unit test to make sure the
>> bindings are correct on all supported versions of Python would go a
>> long way of avoiding this scenario in the future.
>>
>> As to revert vs. not revert, it depends on what's broken and how quick
>> is the fix. The questions I always ask myself are:
>>
>> 1. Is the breakage stopping any CI look from reporting further bugs?
>> This also depends on how often the CI loop runs and how much relies on
>> it.
>> 2. Is there someone looking at the problem? If no, then reverting it
>> the *only* course of action. If yes, we'll need time-frames for a
>> possible fix before deciding to revert.
>>
>>
> I'm not confident that I can patch this quickly.
>
>
>> If we hadn't crossed the branch barrier, I'd be all for reverting it.
>> But we have. So, to avoid multiple reversions and re-applies and
>> multiple RCs, I think we need to be a bit more cautious here.
>>
>>
> As a point of information, before this patch clang bindings in python3
> would segfault. Behaviour of bindings in python2 is unaffected by the patch.
>
> best,
>
> Jon
>
> cheers,
>> --renato
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170113/de05401c/attachment.html>