-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.7k
gh-138451: Support custom LLVM installation path #138452
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Most changes to Python require a NEWS entry. Add one using the blurb_it web app or the blurb command-line tool. If this change has little impact on Python users, wait for a maintainer to apply the |
Tools/jit/_llvm.py
Outdated
| async def _find_tool(tool: str, *, echo: bool = False) -> str | None: | ||
| # Explicitly defined LLVM installation location | ||
| if (llvm_root := os.getenv("LLVM_ROOT")) is not None: | ||
| path = os.path.join(llvm_root, "bin", tool) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are all LLVM installation folders guaranteed to have the tool located in the $LLVM_ROOT/bin directory? I think it's somewhat risky to assume that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually there is a LLVM_TOOLS_INSTALL_DIR in the CMakeLists to customize this: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/74ec38fad0a1289f936e5388fa8bbe74653c55d9/llvm/CMakeLists.txt#L494
I should probably use that instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah that seems better
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is LLVM_TOOLS_INSTALL_DIR (or LLVM_ROOT for that matter) documented anywhere?
It seems like an env var used for building/installing LLVM itself, not necessarily something meant to be used after-the-fact by people trying to find LLVM. Or am I misunderstanding?
Tools/jit/_llvm.py
Outdated
| @_async_cache | ||
| async def _find_tool(tool: str, *, echo: bool = False) -> str | None: | ||
| # Explicitly defined LLVM installation location | ||
| if (llvm_tools_dir := os.getenv("LLVM_TOOLS_INSTALL_DIR")) is not None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we document this somewhere? If it gets a NEWS entry, then we probably have (or need) a list of environment variables that may need to be set when building.
I'd expect the list to be in the devguide, really, which is a different repo. But do we have one in the main repo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also:
| if (llvm_tools_dir := os.getenv("LLVM_TOOLS_INSTALL_DIR")) is not None: | |
| if llvm_tools_dir := os.getenv("LLVM_TOOLS_INSTALL_DIR")): |
We shouldn't join to an empty value either (since that's interchangeable with "not set"). And possibly we should make sure it's an absolute path as well, though that may not matter so much.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Considering the JIT is still experimental, I don't think we should document this in the CPython docs. I agree that it should be in the devguide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I did not know about the devguide before this review: Where should I add something? On first sight there was no section obvious to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume it's somewhere on this page, but to be honest I didn't read the whole thing: https://github.com/python/devguide/blob/main/getting-started/setup-building.rst
Possibly we need a new section here anyway for building the JIT? @savannahostrowski @brandtbucher are there JIT-specific build docs somewhere to document a relevant environment variable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have docs for building in https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/Tools/jit/README.md#building. We'd probably want to update this for now.
|
Rebased and added documentation to the mentioned README. Is there anything more I can do here to get it merged? |
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Build/2025-09-03-14-55-59.gh-issue-138451.-Qzh2S.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
savannahostrowski
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm wondering if we should make this a configure flag instead, like we did with #138498. That way, you can pass the flag into configure once (e.g., ./configure --with-llvm-tools-dir=/opt/homebrew/opt/llvm...) and then just run make without remembering to pass LLVM_TOOLS_INSTALL_DIR each time. That'd make it more consistent with other build options.
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
|
I have made the requested changes; please review again |
|
Thanks for making the requested changes! @savannahostrowski: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
Add support for explicitly defined LLVM installation location. This is necessary as MSVC now comes with its own LLVM installation and activating MSVC via vcvars.bat will put LLVM tools on the `PATH` before the local ones.
Co-authored-by: Steve Dower <steve.dower@microsoft.com>
savannahostrowski
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One comment but I think this looks good.
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Build/2025-09-03-14-55-59.gh-issue-138451.-Qzh2S.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
I think this is the same problem I've faced in #141967 (comment), so thanks for doing this! I've noticed there, that e.g. running will smuggle in the include path of the clang specified on the command line in front of the environment variable which the hard coded (and maybe different) clang version used in the jit builds doesn't like depending on the version mismatch ... |
|
Lines 23 to 31 in 8801c6d
cpython/PCbuild/pyproject-clangcl.props Line 31 in 8801c6d
Lines 69 to 73 in 8801c6d
Does that mean that we have to specify the additional |
There's no strict requirement for make/configure variables to match pcbuild.proj variables, but if it's specified as an environment variable then we should probably detect if it's set and copy it over the actual variable. That's one line in |
|
IIUC, you mean setting I think it might be "too late", since AFAIR internally this is used by MS when preparing the environment according to "their" variable names, but we'll see. What's definitely easy: just use the MS variable names here because, as you said
and just update the jit readme accordingly if we cannot map the variables easily "early" enough ... Or we do it in |
|
Any file that sets |
|
@zooba @chris-eibl I'm a bit unsure what I need to do here to get this merged. Is there anything from your side that I should address in my code for windows builds? |
|
First I thought we have these choices:
|
|
I've first tried option 4 via adding to Lines 122 to 127 in 8c87bcd
This would have been my preferred choice, because then we would not have to "teach something new" and could have the same variables on Windows / Linux. However, if during installing of Visual Studio the bundled clang-cl is chosen to be installed, it turned out that |
|
Implementing option 3 is easy, too: just add after Lines 30 to 32 in 8c87bcd
Now we'd have to document that when overriding the clang used to build the jit stencils will chose that clang for building Python, too, if built with So option 1 gives more flexibility, but needs (?) a warning and "specifying the same thing twice" might feel like a wart. I am unsure what to do best, but considering the jit is maybe no longer experimental, we should care to find a good solution here? |
The JIT is still experimental, but Python build flags and in general build.bat flags are bound by backwards compatibility, so when adding things we have to treat it as non-experimental. |
Fixes #138451
Add support for explicitly defined LLVM installation location.
This is necessary as MSVC now comes with its own LLVM installation and activating MSVC via vcvars.bat will put LLVM tools on the
PATHbefore the local ones.You can see this in usage in conda-forge's latest Python 3.13 build: conda-forge/python-feedstock#807