Skip to content

Conversation

@tobim
Copy link
Contributor

@tobim tobim commented Jun 1, 2020

This is an alternative to #6220.

This changes the linking method to jemalloc from linking to libjemalloc.a to using the objects it is comprised of when linking libarrow. The advantage over #6220 is that the approach taken here does not require different methods of linking jemalloc for libarrow.so and libarrow.a.

Mimalloc would need a similar treatment before this can be merged, but I'm putting this out for comment before I develop it any further.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 1, 2020

@tobim tobim force-pushed the bundled-dependencies branch from 71795ca to 96abc3d Compare June 1, 2020 11:00
@tobim tobim force-pushed the bundled-dependencies branch from 96abc3d to e574bab Compare June 1, 2020 11:08
@wesm
Copy link
Member

wesm commented Jun 16, 2020

Will this approach work on Windows? This doesn't look like it's going to work for all our dependencies that might be built in bundled mode. I still think the static lib splicing with ar (and equivalents on macOS and Windows) is the most viable solution. Do others have opinions?

@wesm
Copy link
Member

wesm commented Jun 28, 2020

I'm going to close this for now and attempt to pursue the static library splicing solution for 1.0.0

@wesm wesm closed this Jun 28, 2020
@tobim
Copy link
Contributor Author

tobim commented Jun 30, 2020

@wesm I still believe this approach is the sanest, but seeing that it requires CMake 3.9 I guess that makes it a non-starter?
I would not expect problems with this on windows, but that is not my turf, so don't take my word for it. Which other bundled dependencies were you thinking of?

@wesm
Copy link
Member

wesm commented Jun 30, 2020

We're running out of time to get this completed for the release, so if a working solution can be demonstrated to have been reached on all 3 platforms that works for both jemalloc (for Linux and macOS) and mimalloc (for Windows), then I will accept it. But there are single digits days remaining to complete this work now. CMake 3.9 is a bit problematic since we've tried to support CMake >= 3.2 and definitely >= 3.7

@tobim
Copy link
Contributor Author

tobim commented Jul 1, 2020

CMake 3.9 is a bit problematic since we've tried to support CMake >= 3.2 and definitely >= 3.7

In that case the other approach should be pursued.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants