Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-09 Thread Kevin Kofler
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 (min

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-07 Thread Adam Jackson
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 wa

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-07 Thread drago01
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... >

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-06 Thread Jens Petersen
> 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 shou

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-06 Thread Adam Jackson
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 assumin

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-06 Thread Jens Petersen
> 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

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-06 Thread Jens Petersen
> 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

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-05 Thread Adam Jackson
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). > > Otherwis

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-11-04 Thread Jens Petersen
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 compi

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-21 Thread Adam Jackson
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 activ

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-21 Thread Sergio Pascual
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 h

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-21 Thread 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... fe

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-21 Thread Sergio Pascual
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 wh

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-20 Thread David Airlie
> > 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

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-20 Thread Kyle McMartin
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

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-20 Thread Kalev Lember
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 w

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-20 Thread Peter Robinson
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 hav

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-20 Thread 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 relea

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-17 Thread Sergio Pascual
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 >

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-17 Thread 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-ll

LLVM 3.5 rebase

2014-10-17 Thread Adam Jackson
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. 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: