Skip to content

Conversation

@kou
Copy link
Member

@kou kou commented Jul 29, 2024

Rationale for this change

LZ4 1.10.0 provides LZ4::lz4 but LZ4 1.9.4 provides only LZ4::lz4_shared and LZ4::lz4_static. So we need to prepare LZ4::lz4 in our side.

What changes are included in this PR?

Define LZ4::lz4 by LZ4::lz4_shared or LZ4::lz4_static if LZ4::lz4 doesn't exist.

Are these changes tested?

Yes.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes.

LZ4 1.10.0 provides `LZ4::lz4` but LZ4 1.9.4 provides only
`LZ4::lz4_shared` and `LZ4::lz4_static`. So we need to prepare
`LZ4::lz4` in our side.
@kou
Copy link
Member Author

kou commented Jul 29, 2024

@github-actions crossbow submit -g linux

@github-actions
Copy link

⚠️ GitHub issue #43467 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

@github-actions
Copy link

Revision: 3f3f175

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-0c25fa4488

Task Status
almalinux-8-amd64 GitHub Actions
almalinux-8-arm64 GitHub Actions
almalinux-9-amd64 GitHub Actions
almalinux-9-arm64 GitHub Actions
amazon-linux-2023-amd64 GitHub Actions
amazon-linux-2023-arm64 GitHub Actions
centos-7-amd64 GitHub Actions
centos-8-stream-amd64 GitHub Actions
centos-8-stream-arm64 GitHub Actions
centos-9-stream-amd64 GitHub Actions
centos-9-stream-arm64 GitHub Actions
debian-bookworm-amd64 GitHub Actions
debian-bookworm-arm64 GitHub Actions
debian-trixie-amd64 GitHub Actions
debian-trixie-arm64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-focal-amd64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-focal-arm64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-jammy-amd64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-jammy-arm64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-noble-amd64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-noble-arm64 GitHub Actions

@assignUser
Copy link
Member

assignUser commented Jul 31, 2024

@github-actions crossbow submit r-binary-packages

Because liblz4-dev misses it.
@kou
Copy link
Member Author

kou commented Jul 31, 2024

@github-actions crossbow submit debian-* ubuntu-*

@github-actions
Copy link

Revision: c2c28c8

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-162465cbc3

Task Status
r-binary-packages GitHub Actions

@github-actions
Copy link

Revision: c2c28c8

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-033c72d75e

Task Status
debian-bookworm-amd64 GitHub Actions
debian-bookworm-arm64 GitHub Actions
debian-trixie-amd64 GitHub Actions
debian-trixie-arm64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-focal-amd64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-focal-arm64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-jammy-amd64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-jammy-arm64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-noble-amd64 GitHub Actions
ubuntu-noble-arm64 GitHub Actions

@kou
Copy link
Member Author

kou commented Jul 31, 2024

+1

@jonkeane
Copy link
Member

Thanks for this! I've been attempting to replicate the CRAN issue locally and this look like it will work (though I haven't yet gotten a full success yet due to other unrelated AWS dependency issues. I'll cherry pick it to our maintenance branch there and test again tomorrow morning

jonkeane pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2024
### Rationale for this change

LZ4 1.10.0 provides `LZ4::lz4` but LZ4 1.9.4 provides only `LZ4::lz4_shared` and `LZ4::lz4_static`. So we need to prepare `LZ4::lz4` in our side.

### What changes are included in this PR?

Define `LZ4::lz4` by `LZ4::lz4_shared` or `LZ4::lz4_static` if `LZ4::lz4` doesn't exist.

### Are these changes tested?

Yes.

### Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes.
* GitHub Issue: #43467

Authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com>
Signed-off-by: Jacob Wujciak-Jens <jacob@wujciak.de>
@kou kou deleted the cpp-lz4 branch July 31, 2024 05:38
@conbench-apache-arrow
Copy link

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 62fd987.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 82 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants