mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zha, Sheng" <zhash...@amazon.com>
Subject Re: move entirely to CMakefiles for building MXNet, drop Makefiles
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2018 12:53:08 GMT
You can set rpath to $${ORIGIN} to make the path where the libmxnet.so resides a path to look
up.

-sz



- Sent by my thumb
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> About libomp.so
> 
> This is giving me some problems when creating a pip package for installing
> on Jetson. I'm thinking that in this case would be better to compile with
> -fopenmp. I tried adding libomp.so to the pip package next to libmxnet.so
> and still I couldn't load the library...  Any ideas?
> 
> Pedro
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Eric Xie <jxie@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> We want as few dependencies as possible.
>> CMake alone is enough trouble for our users. We don't want to burden them
>> with other stuff.
>> 
>> On 2018/03/06 17:21:15, kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderland@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Short term solution sounds good to me Chris.  Converting the CI should be
>>> pretty easy.  One thing we should keep in mind is that there's going to
>> be
>>> a bunch of doc's we'll have to update.
>>> 
>>> Warning, slight thread hijack ahead:
>>> As a more long term change I was wondering if we had considered using
>>> hunter for third party packages?  It seems like a good system, and while
>> it
>>> likely won't have support for all our projects, we can contribute back
>>> support for the ones we care about.
>>> 
>>> For me the primary benefit would be that it would conditionally fetch
>>> source at build time based on your cmake configuration.  This would mean
>> it
>>> could say, detect you want opencv/mp/protobuf (if you're using onnx) and
>>> then it'd check out the pinned version we specify and build for your
>>> platform.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Here is discussion:
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/8702
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This was agreed upon some time ago in a github issue thread, unless
>> there
>>>>> are new objections to it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As far as I know, it's just a matter of someone putting in the work
>> to
>>>> add
>>>>> more functionality to cmake or to fuse the two builds.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One solution for the short term might include having the Makefile
>> launch
>>>>> cmake for most of the build and fall back to Makefile for some of the
>>>>> remaining stuff, like scalapkg, rpkg, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> btw, cmake uses the openmp in 3rdparty
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Pedro Larroy <
>>>> pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like to raise the issue that maintaining two overlapping
>> build
>>>>>> systems is too much overhead. It adds unnecessary complexity and
>>>>>> differences on how the project is built.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For example, openmp is used differently from CMake and Make, in the
>>>> former
>>>>>> the one provided by gcc is used and in the later is compiled from
>> the
>>>>>> 3rdparty folder.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think this situation is not sustainable for the project, and
>> specially
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> we add that we want to support compilation and cross compilation
on
>>>>>> devices.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My proposal would be to identify any gaps that are not covered by
>> the
>>>>>> CMake
>>>>>> build system, cover them and make CMake the single build system for
>>>> MXNet,
>>>>>> well tested and fully supported.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Pedro.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Mime
View raw message