[llvm-dev] Python 2 compatibility for utility scripts

Philip Reames via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Dec 17 17:36:42 PST 2019

On 12/17/19 10:33 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:15 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com 
> <mailto:jyknight at google.com>> wrote:
>     On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:55 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org
>     <mailto:thakis at chromium.org>> wrote:
>         On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:41 PM James Y Knight
>         <jyknight at google.com <mailto:jyknight at google.com>> wrote:
>             It sounds like you ran into a bug in the test
>             infrastructure's code to determine if python3 is
>             supported. Fixing that might be harder, but it only needs
>             to be fixed once no matter how much more python3
>             development there will be.
>         No, it was in some local.lit.cfg.
>     I see that now. Sure, in that case I suggest to fix whatever the
>     issue is /and move/ it to common code, so that the "python3"
>     feature is correctly detected and available to any test.
>             Right now, most of our scripts were originally written for
>             python 2, so certainly it's easy for them to support
>             python 2. But, it was a lot of work by various people to
>             port them all to additionally work in python 3. And, in
>             the future (or maybe even now), people will be generally
>             be writing python3 scripts by default rather than python2.
>             Certainly they ought to.
>             I just don't think it's worthwhile to require all new such
>             scripts to continue to be written bilingually, unless
>             doing that extra work helps to serve users.
>             I'm not at all worried about a hypothetical case where we
>             want to ship a script that was written for python3 only.
>             Firstly, because that usually doesn't happen. But if it
>             does, we can port it then, or else we might just decide
>             it's fine for it to be python3 only.
>         You don't see any advantage to having a consistent language
>         level across the project? (See also the flang vs c++17
>         discussion.)
>     In this particular situatoin, correct. For these auxilliary
>     scripts which are not released or used to build/test released
>     components, I see no advantage to requiring these to support
>     python2, anymore.
> Well, I disagree :)
> I'm curious what others think.

Don't really care, but I have a mild preference for accepting patches to 
keep python2 working.  I wouldn't *require* scripts to work with 
python2, but I see no reason not to land patches if someone wants to put 
in the work.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191217/ea0c082c/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list