Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
Jens Petersen wrote: >> I don't think compat-llvm34 would save you. ghc emits llvm ir directly, >> then invokes llc to compile it; /usr/bin/llc would only be provided by >> llvm, not by the compat package which would be just the old library. > > I was assuming it would provide all of llvm34 (minus clang34). :) > > I think the only way for ARM ghc is to do an llvm34 package. > (I don't know when ghc will support 3.5 - perhaps for 7.10 which > is now in development?) ghc only needs llvm.armv7hl (and llvm-libs). > > The alternative seems to be to revert llvm to 3.4 but I assume that > would not be such a popular choice either. :) Or we just ship GHC broken on ARM and an update can fix it once we have a real fix. GHC and Haskell software compiled with it aren't release-blocking (and only on ARM at that), are they? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 20:51 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote: > > That's only going to work if llvm34 renames all of its binaries, and ghc > > is changed to invoke the renamed ones, right? Otherwise the 3.4 and 3.5 > > versions of /usr/bin/llc will conflict. > > Hmm yes I guess I should go the whole way... > > My initial lazy plan was just that ghc-compiler.armv7hl > should require and BR llvm34 instead of llvm (and make llvm34 > Conflicts with llvm and llvm34-devel conflicts with llvm-devel...). Seems like a lot of work on your part to avoid doing any work on the arm maintainers' parts. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: >> That's only going to work if llvm34 renames all of its binaries, and ghc >> is changed to invoke the renamed ones, right? Otherwise the 3.4 and 3.5 >> versions of /usr/bin/llc will conflict. > > Hmm yes I guess I should go the whole way... > > My initial lazy plan was just that ghc-compiler.armv7hl > should require and BR llvm34 instead of llvm (and make llvm34 > Conflicts with llvm and llvm34-devel conflicts with llvm-devel...). > > Not sure how many people really need both (on arm), > but I suppose it is better to avoid conflict where possible. Well mesa depends on llvm so that sounds like not really practical. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
> That's only going to work if llvm34 renames all of its binaries, and ghc > is changed to invoke the renamed ones, right? Otherwise the 3.4 and 3.5 > versions of /usr/bin/llc will conflict. Hmm yes I guess I should go the whole way... My initial lazy plan was just that ghc-compiler.armv7hl should require and BR llvm34 instead of llvm (and make llvm34 Conflicts with llvm and llvm34-devel conflicts with llvm-devel...). Not sure how many people really need both (on arm), but I suppose it is better to avoid conflict where possible. Jens -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 21:23 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote: > > I don't think compat-llvm34 would save you. ghc emits llvm ir directly, > > then invokes llc to compile it; /usr/bin/llc would only be provided by > > llvm, not by the compat package which would be just the old library. > > I was assuming it would provide all of llvm34 (minus clang34). :) That's only going to work if llvm34 renames all of its binaries, and ghc is changed to invoke the renamed ones, right? Otherwise the 3.4 and 3.5 versions of /usr/bin/llc will conflict. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
> I don't think compat-llvm34 would save you. ghc emits llvm ir directly, > then invokes llc to compile it; /usr/bin/llc would only be provided by > llvm, not by the compat package which would be just the old library. I was assuming it would provide all of llvm34 (minus clang34). :) I think the only way for ARM ghc is to do an llvm34 package. (I don't know when ghc will support 3.5 - perhaps for 7.10 which is now in development?) ghc only needs llvm.armv7hl (and llvm-libs). The alternative seems to be to revert llvm to 3.4 but I assume that would not be such a popular choice either. :) Jens -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
> I think the only way for ARM ghc is to do an llvm34 package. > (I don't know when ghc will support 3.5 - perhaps for 7.10 which > is now in development?) ghc only needs llvm.armv7hl (and llvm-libs). I went ahead and created a llvm34 package. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161014 If some kind person can help to review it that would be appreciated. It is heavily based on F21 llvm.spec. Thanks, Jens -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 00:44 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote: > llvm-3.5 seems to break Haskell programs compiled with ghc on ARM badly. > > > Perhaps I should just barge ahead with a compat-llvm34? > > Adam: this would be very welcome for ghc > (ghc only needs llvm - not any clang bits). > > Otherwise currently we can't build any Haskell packages in Rawhide > because compiled programs all fail to run on armv7hl with a runtime error: I don't think compat-llvm34 would save you. ghc emits llvm ir directly, then invokes llc to compile it; /usr/bin/llc would only be provided by llvm, not by the compat package which would be just the old library. Sounds like a problem for the arm maintainer. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
llvm-3.5 seems to break Haskell programs compiled with ghc on ARM badly. > Perhaps I should just barge ahead with a compat-llvm34? Adam: this would be very welcome for ghc (ghc only needs llvm - not any clang bits). Otherwise currently we can't build any Haskell packages in Rawhide because compiled programs all fail to run on armv7hl with a runtime error: schedule: re-entered unsafely. Perhaps a 'foreign import unsafe' should be 'safe'? See for example http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=8036158&name=build.log&offset=-4000 and http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=8037090&name=build.log&offset=-4000 I just ran into this today and someone else reported the same to ghc upstream last week. Jens -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 13:33 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: > I have retired python-llvmpy in Rawhide and F21. > Now if the owner of llvm does the "Obsoletes trick " then the rebase > can go ahead, is it right? Hopefully! I still need to get dragonegg building, but that at least does have an active upstream. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
2014-10-21 12:32 GMT+02:00 Kalev Lember : > On 10/21/2014 10:37 AM, Sergio Pascual wrote: > > Just a question. If I retire the package in F21, will it affect the F20 > > F21 upgrade path for those > > who have python-llvmpy installed? > > > > I mean, you upgrade, there is a new llvm 3.5, but you have python-llvpmy > > that requires llvm 3.4 > > and... fedup will probably ignore python-llvpmy and will go ahead, but > > those that use yum will need to > > uninstall python-llvmpy by hand. Is this correct? > > The usual fix for this is to have something remove the retired package > on upgrades. llvm should be a good candidate for doing the removal since > all python-llvmpy installations already have llvm installed. > > Something like this in llvm spec file: > > Obsoletes: python-llvmpy < 0.12.7-2 > Obsoletes: python3-llvmpy < 0.12.7-2 > > I have retired python-llvmpy in Rawhide and F21. Now if the owner of llvm does the "Obsoletes trick " then the rebase can go ahead, is it right? > -- > Hope this helps, > Kalev > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On 10/21/2014 10:37 AM, Sergio Pascual wrote: > Just a question. If I retire the package in F21, will it affect the F20 > F21 upgrade path for those > who have python-llvmpy installed? > > I mean, you upgrade, there is a new llvm 3.5, but you have python-llvpmy > that requires llvm 3.4 > and... fedup will probably ignore python-llvpmy and will go ahead, but > those that use yum will need to > uninstall python-llvmpy by hand. Is this correct? The usual fix for this is to have something remove the retired package on upgrades. llvm should be a good candidate for doing the removal since all python-llvmpy installations already have llvm installed. Something like this in llvm spec file: Obsoletes: python-llvmpy < 0.12.7-2 Obsoletes: python3-llvmpy < 0.12.7-2 -- Hope this helps, Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
2014-10-20 16:19 GMT+02:00 Adam Jackson : > On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 19:16 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: > > 2014-10-17 16:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Robinson : > > > So I'm OK with retiring python-llvmpy if a patch doesn't appear soon. > > I would be too, but I'm going to want 3.5 in F21, and we have this whole > thing about not retiring packages in a live release. > > So I will retire the package before the window for F21 closes. Just a question. If I retire the package in F21, will it affect the F20 F21 upgrade path for those who have python-llvmpy installed? I mean, you upgrade, there is a new llvm 3.5, but you have python-llvpmy that requires llvm 3.4 and... fedup will probably ignore python-llvpmy and will go ahead, but those that use yum will need to uninstall python-llvmpy by hand. Is this correct? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
> > i can take a look at llvmpy this week, but i'd recommend just retiring > it otherwise. it can come back if it has to. I was going to retire it before, but upstream had a patch, Its jsut a wrapper aruond the API, it probably needs to be developed in sync with llvm, and so far I haven't seen any upstream dedication to doing so. The thing is then llvmpy will hve an unstable API, which means the llvmpy users will need changing for every llvm release. Dave. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:19:16AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 19:16 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: > > 2014-10-17 16:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Robinson : > > > So I'm OK with retiring python-llvmpy if a patch doesn't appear soon. > > I would be too, but I'm going to want 3.5 in F21, and we have this whole > thing about not retiring packages in a live release. > > Perhaps I should just barge ahead with a compat-llvm34? > i can take a look at llvmpy this week, but i'd recommend just retiring it otherwise. it can come back if it has to. --kyle -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On 10/20/2014 04:19 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 19:16 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: >> 2014-10-17 16:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Robinson : > >> So I'm OK with retiring python-llvmpy if a patch doesn't appear soon. > > I would be too, but I'm going to want 3.5 in F21, and we have this whole > thing about not retiring packages in a live release. Packages in F21 can still be retired at this point. -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 19:16 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: >> 2014-10-17 16:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Robinson : > >> So I'm OK with retiring python-llvmpy if a patch doesn't appear soon. > > I would be too, but I'm going to want 3.5 in F21, and we have this whole > thing about not retiring packages in a live release. You can still retire packages in F-21 up until just before GA (not sure off hand the exact cut off period) Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 19:16 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: > 2014-10-17 16:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Robinson : > So I'm OK with retiring python-llvmpy if a patch doesn't appear soon. I would be too, but I'm going to want 3.5 in F21, and we have this whole thing about not retiring packages in a live release. Perhaps I should just barge ahead with a compat-llvm34? - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
2014-10-17 16:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Robinson : > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > Yep, this again. I'm just as thrilled as you are. 3.5 is necessary for > > proper ppc64le support, as well as some minor radeonsi features in Mesa. > > And massively improved aarch64 support > > > One problem this time around appears to be python-llvmpy, which appears > > to have decided that llvm 3.2/3.3 are the only versions it will support: > > > > > https://github.com/llvmpy/llvmpy/commit/1e141931b874dd0bc3d8e9d801b949939430ad4e > > > > We're already shipping it built against 3.4, so that's truly charming. > > I'm open to suggestions here. > > It doesn't look, with a basic repoquery test, that anything in the > core distro needs python-llvmpy so my general feeling is to query > upstream to see what their intentions are regarding support of newer > releases and if they don't intend to keep up then just drop > python-llvmpy at least for the time being unless the Fedora maintainer > plans to fix it RSN. > I initially had intentions to package numba, and other pyhton goodies that depend on python-llvmpy, but I haven't worked on it on a very long time. So I'm OK with retiring python-llvmpy if a patch doesn't appear soon. in the tracking bug for 3.5 https://github.com/llvmpy/llvmpy/issues/106 Sergio -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > Yep, this again. I'm just as thrilled as you are. 3.5 is necessary for > proper ppc64le support, as well as some minor radeonsi features in Mesa. And massively improved aarch64 support > One problem this time around appears to be python-llvmpy, which appears > to have decided that llvm 3.2/3.3 are the only versions it will support: > > https://github.com/llvmpy/llvmpy/commit/1e141931b874dd0bc3d8e9d801b949939430ad4e > > We're already shipping it built against 3.4, so that's truly charming. > I'm open to suggestions here. It doesn't look, with a basic repoquery test, that anything in the core distro needs python-llvmpy so my general feeling is to query upstream to see what their intentions are regarding support of newer releases and if they don't intend to keep up then just drop python-llvmpy at least for the time being unless the Fedora maintainer plans to fix it RSN. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
