[llvm-dev] [RFC] No longer look up bugpoint tools in PATH?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[llvm-dev] [RFC] No longer look up bugpoint tools in PATH?

Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev
Hello all,

Earlier this week I sent up https://reviews.llvm.org/D54884, which changes how bugpoint finds executables it relies upon to reduce programs. Specifically:

- Before: bugpoint would only look for 'opt' in the user's PATH
- After: bugpoint looks for 'opt' in the user's PATH, and if it doesn't find it, looks for 'opt' in the same directory as the bugpoint executable

I made this change because it saves me keystrokes: I always use bugpoint from a source build, and so it's always placed in a build directory next to opt. By searching there, I no longer need to pass it the --opt-command option. I noticed that tools like Clang & lld behave this way as well.

On the patch Davide Italiano mentions that he's always found it strange that bugpoint looks in the PATH at all! So I'm wondering: should I modify my patch to change bugpoint's behavior, and no longer have it look up tools like 'opt' in the user PATH? On the one hand, I think people like Davide would find this more intuitive. On the other, I notice bugpoint also relies on tools like valgrind, which are typically not placed in the same build folder as LLVM tools, so those might be harder to look up and find.

I'm looking for people who use bugpoint regularly to respond with their own examples and use cases, to better inform me about how bugpoint should behave. Please let me know which PATH lookup behavior makes the most sense to you!

Thanks!

- Brian Gesiak

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] No longer look up bugpoint tools in PATH?

Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev
 > On the patch Davide Italiano mentions that he's always found it
strange that bugpoint looks in the PATH at all!
Thats my impression as well!
Would be nice to remove that, saves some keystrokes (though now I do it
subconsciously ;) ).

regards,
   Fedor.


On 11/30/18 5:27 PM, Brian Gesiak via llvm-dev wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Earlier this week I sent up https://reviews.llvm.org/D54884, which
> changes how bugpoint finds executables it relies upon to reduce
> programs. Specifically:
>
> - Before: bugpoint would only look for 'opt' in the user's PATH
> - After: bugpoint looks for 'opt' in the user's PATH, and if it
> doesn't find it, looks for 'opt' in the same directory as the bugpoint
> executable
>
> I made this change because it saves me keystrokes: I always use
> bugpoint from a source build, and so it's always placed in a build
> directory next to opt. By searching there, I no longer need to pass it
> the --opt-command option. I noticed that tools like Clang & lld behave
> this way as well.
>
> On the patch Davide Italiano mentions that he's always found it
> strange that bugpoint looks in the PATH at all! So I'm wondering:
> should I modify my patch to change bugpoint's behavior, and no longer
> have it look up tools like 'opt' in the user PATH? On the one hand, I
> think people like Davide would find this more intuitive. On the other,
> I notice bugpoint also relies on tools like valgrind, which are
> typically not placed in the same build folder as LLVM tools, so those
> might be harder to look up and find.
>
> I'm looking for people who use bugpoint regularly to respond with
> their own examples and use cases, to better inform me about how
> bugpoint should behave. Please let me know which PATH lookup behavior
> makes the most sense to you!
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Brian Gesiak
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] No longer look up bugpoint tools in PATH?

Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev
On 11/30/18 8:27 AM, Brian Gesiak via llvm-dev wrote:
Hello all,

Earlier this week I sent up https://reviews.llvm.org/D54884, which changes how bugpoint finds executables it relies upon to reduce programs. Specifically:

- Before: bugpoint would only look for 'opt' in the user's PATH
- After: bugpoint looks for 'opt' in the user's PATH, and if it doesn't find it, looks for 'opt' in the same directory as the bugpoint executable

I made this change because it saves me keystrokes: I always use bugpoint from a source build, and so it's always placed in a build directory next to opt. By searching there, I no longer need to pass it the --opt-command option. I noticed that tools like Clang & lld behave this way as well.

On the patch Davide Italiano mentions that he's always found it strange that bugpoint looks in the PATH at all! So I'm wondering: should I modify my patch to change bugpoint's behavior, and no longer have it look up tools like 'opt' in the user PATH?

Yes. It has certainly been a long-term annoyance that to make bugpoint use the opt built with bugpoint, I needed to change the PATH, or similar, when using the corresponding opt almost always what I want to do


On the one hand, I think people like Davide would find this more intuitive. On the other, I notice bugpoint also relies on tools like valgrind, which are typically not placed in the same build folder as LLVM tools, so those might be harder to look up and find.

valgrind or other "system" tools should still do a PATH lookup. That's a different matter.

 -Hal


I'm looking for people who use bugpoint regularly to respond with their own examples and use cases, to better inform me about how bugpoint should behave. Please let me know which PATH lookup behavior makes the most sense to you!

Thanks!

- Brian Gesiak

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] No longer look up bugpoint tools in PATH?

Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev


On Nov 30, 2018, at 6:27 AM, Brian Gesiak via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello all,

Earlier this week I sent up https://reviews.llvm.org/D54884, which changes how bugpoint finds executables it relies upon to reduce programs. Specifically:

- Before: bugpoint would only look for 'opt' in the user's PATH
- After: bugpoint looks for 'opt' in the user's PATH, and if it doesn't find it, looks for 'opt' in the same directory as the bugpoint executable

+1

I've never found this behavior helpful.

-- adrian


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] No longer look up bugpoint tools in PATH?

Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 6:28 AM Brian Gesiak via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello all,
>
> Earlier this week I sent up https://reviews.llvm.org/D54884, which changes how bugpoint finds executables it relies upon to reduce programs. Specifically:
>
> - Before: bugpoint would only look for 'opt' in the user's PATH
> - After: bugpoint looks for 'opt' in the user's PATH, and if it doesn't find it, looks for 'opt' in the same directory as the bugpoint executable
>
> I made this change because it saves me keystrokes: I always use bugpoint from a source build, and so it's always placed in a build directory next to opt. By searching there, I no longer need to pass it the --opt-command option. I noticed that tools like Clang & lld behave this way as well.
>
> On the patch Davide Italiano mentions that he's always found it strange that bugpoint looks in the PATH at all! So I'm wondering: should I modify my patch to change bugpoint's behavior, and no longer have it look up tools like 'opt' in the user PATH? On the one hand, I think people like Davide would find this more intuitive. On the other, I notice bugpoint also relies on tools like valgrind, which are typically not placed in the same build folder as LLVM tools, so those might be harder to look up and find.
>
> I'm looking for people who use bugpoint regularly to respond with their own examples and use cases, to better inform me about how bugpoint should behave. Please let me know which PATH lookup behavior makes the most sense to you!
>

I guess I don't have to reiterate my point here as I originally
proposed this, so, of course +1.
You might want to wait another day or two to see if somebody is
opposed and then land the patch.

--
Davide
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev