Skip to content

Conversation

@savannahostrowski
Copy link
Member

@savannahostrowskisavannahostrowski commented May 21, 2024

Alrighty, so I added a very basic job to test that we don't regress things as the JIT and free threading work evolves. I split the build and test into separate steps, so we have a little finer granularity on failures (it's just slightly prettier!). I also opted not to use strategy/matrix to pass in the LLVM version since we only support 18 today. I can add that in if folks feel strongly if we want to keep things very consistent with the other job, but I was going for simple 😄

@savannahostrowski
Copy link
MemberAuthor

savannahostrowski commented May 21, 2024

I also think I messed up the issue tagging bot by adding my PR comment after opening the PR...not sure how to fix that? Copy paste saves the day?

savannahostrowskiand others added 2 commits May 20, 2024 21:36
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
@savannahostrowski
Copy link
MemberAuthor

I suppose this could also be implemented as a matrix entry using include. For now, I feel like a new job is probably simpler because we're only testing a single platform, but if we ever want to expand the tested platforms, we could consider moving in that direction to avoid a ton of duplication.

- name: Build with JIT enabled and GIL disabled
run: |
sudo bash -c "$(wget -O - https://apt.llvm.org/llvm.sh)" ./llvm.sh 18
export PATH="$(llvm-config-18 --bindir):$PATH"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Opinions: should we add --with-pydebug? Maybe test both modes?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's fine to leave this as-is (just one --with-pydebug build).

Copy link
Member

@brandtbucherbrandtbucher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great idea.

One suggestion:

Co-authored-by: Brandt Bucher <brandtbucher@gmail.com>
@brandtbucherbrandtbucher merged commit c4722cd into python:mainMay 21, 2024
@brandtbucherbrandtbucher self-assigned this May 21, 2024
@brandtbucherbrandtbucher added tests Tests in the Lib/test dir awaiting merge needs backport to 3.13 bugs and security fixes labels May 21, 2024
@miss-islington-app
Copy link

Thanks @savannahostrowski for the PR, and @brandtbucher for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request May 21, 2024
…il (pythonGH-119293) (cherry picked from commit c4722cd) Co-authored-by: Savannah Ostrowski <savannahostrowski@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
@bedevere-app
Copy link

GH-119314 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch.

@bedevere-appbedevere-appbot removed the needs backport to 3.13 bugs and security fixes label May 21, 2024
estyxx pushed a commit to estyxx/cpython that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024
…il (pythonGH-119293) Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
@savannahostrowskisavannahostrowski deleted the jit-no-gil-ci branch September 27, 2024 16:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

awaiting mergeskip newstestsTests in the Lib/test dirtopic-JIT

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@savannahostrowski@hugovk@sobolevn@brandtbucher@Eclips4