[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packaging xsimd





On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 22:06, Julien Lamy <lamy@unistra.fr> wrote:
Le 22/04/2021 à 18:29, Nilesh Patra a écrit :
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 21:38, Julien Lamy <lamy@unistra.fr
> <mailto:lamy@unistra.fr>> wrote:
>
>     No, it can work with only SSE and only SSE2 enabled, which would match
>     the baseline (tested with a non-AVX machine, I could not get my
>     hands on
>     a non-SSE2 box).
>
>
>      > * Is this portable to arches other than x86 and arm?
>
>     Theoretically yes: there is a fallback mode which codes the SIMD
>     instructions as loops. I have not tested it in a non-x86 and non-ARM
>     environment.
>
>
> I will try testing it. It looks unlikely since it seems to need a native
> architecture. Likely build time tests will
> not work, but I'll check nevertheless

Thanks, I'll be curious of the results.

I tried in a ppc64el porter box, and I get several of:

/home/nilesh/xsimd/xsimd/test/test_batch_bool.cpp:315:1: error: 'gtest_type_params_batch_bool_test_' was not declared in this scope; did you mean 'gtest_type_params_batch_bool_test_NameGenerator'?
  315 | TYPED_TEST(batch_bool_test, load_store)
      | ^~~~~~~~~~
/home/nilesh/xsimd/xsimd/test/test_batch_bool.cpp:315:1: error: template argument 3 is invalid
  315 | TYPED_TEST(batch_bool_test, load_store)
      | ^~~~~~~~~~
/home/nilesh/xsimd/xsimd/test/test_batch_bool.cpp:315:1: error: 'gtest_type_params_batch_bool_test_' was not declared in this scope; did you mean 'gtest_type_params_batch_bool_test_NameGenerator'?
  315 | TYPED_TEST(batch_bool_test, load_store)
      | ^~~~~~~~~~

And a failing build. Both for build time as well as autopkgtests.
Do you think we should for now limit arches to amd64 i386 and arm64 in d/control for now?
 
>
>      > * Readme has instructions to build documentation, and you have added
>      > Build Depends as well, to build it. However they are neither
>     built nor
>      > installed.
>      >     If you think building and installing docs make sense, could
>     you fix
>      > it? Please install docs in a separate binary package if so.
>
>     Done.
>
>     I've also bumped the version to 7.5.0, released yesterday while I was
>     packaging :)
>
>
> I do not see your changes on salsa[1] - did you forget to push in any case?

Yes :( Fixed now.

I have following comments to make:

* Why is the package named xsimd-dev instead of libxsimd-dev? It might match xtensor, but AFAICS that's
against the library style packaging. For ref: https://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html

* Please commit v7.5.0 to pristine-tar

* Some files in ./include have excerpts from code that belongs to Boost Software license. For example: ./include/xsimd/math/xsimd_error.hpp
   This should be mentioned in d/cpopyright
   Also, this file: ./test/test_constant_batch.cpp has a different copyright holder "Serge Guelton and QuantStack" so this should also be mentioned explicitly with
   Files: ./test/test_constant_batch.cpp
   Copyright: Serge Guelton and QuantStack
   ..............
   This is not exhaustive, please consider doing a scrutiny for the entire codebase and mention copyrights for any files that differ/have different license

* Autopkgtest on salsa CI fails, consider fixing it: https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/xsimd/-/jobs/1599080

Nilesh


Reply to: