mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: move entirely to CMakefiles for building MXNet, drop Makefiles
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2018 12:45:30 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message