On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 07:03:57AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2019, at 2:56 AM, Kurt Mosiejczuk <kurt@cranky.work> wrote:
> > 'So the existing py-numpy is unhappy with the 2.7 update and it
> > seems to be clashes between clang and gcc.
> Should the 2.7 python update be backed out? Or is there some smaller
> fix for the existing numpy version?
Perhaps it should be backed out. That will also be rather complicated
though.
> Anyway can you share more details of the problem? I am traveling and
> probably can't get to a box for at least another week.
> > This is the last version of py-numpy to work with Python 2.7. 1.17.x
> > will be Python 3.5+ only.
> Even if 1.17 supported python2, it can't go in right now due to avx
> issues that I thought I'd solved but apparently haven't and am
> I'm still trying to debug.
> > I got this as far as compiling with flang, running its tests mostly
> > sucessfully, and packaging. I'm about to start traveling tomorrow
> I am also traveling at the moment and not back for a week which is why
> I think we should back out the python update.
I'll be online intermittently for a couple days and then should be good.
> > so I won't get to testing all the consumers right away. I figured
> > I'd send this out in case someone wants to throw it through a bulk
> > or pick up where I left off.
> The challenge with numpy is we really need to test that the direct
> consumers package *and* we want to do runtime tests as well (ie test
> the consumers of those consumers). That's a lot of stuff to build
> which is why I don't update numpy very often and try to do it
> carefully.
I understand.
> Going to 1.16.5 as a fix for python, without testing numpy in a bulk,
> preferably on multiple archs is asking for trouble.... it may just
> work but it also might cause more problems.
> I wouldn't go that route in a rush.
There's a reason I didn't even ask for an OK :)
My usual procedure is to test the BUILD and TEST consumers. Since I
don't have time at the moment, I labelled this WIP. I suppose this
could concievably ready, but I have *no* idea if that's the case. There
definitely should be a *lot* more testing before someone considers
committing this.
--Kurt
No comments:
Post a Comment