Hey all, Just a quick reminder that we're gonna have the follow-up call tomorrow (Tuesday) 5pm UTC, 9am PST, noon EST, 1am Wednesday Singapore. (About 23hrs from this email) so the folks in europe can make the call too. It'll be a hangouts call same as before and we'll put the link and dial-in number in the google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uYZK2jQtDUPpo3AHe18ZCH1jS9be9s8zR3axLR1SOG0/edit#heading=h.7sjot6x53yvw
Thanks, Jason On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 02:45, Philipp Moritz <pcmor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would building our manylinux2010 wheels against > https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/pull/252 solve the C++11 problems? In > that case we should just do that. Otherwise let's propose a minimally > modified manylinux2011 that fixes C++11 support so we can move on and don't > have to wait 9 more months till manylinux2014 or whatever will support > c++14. > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 9:14 AM Philipp Moritz <pcmor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The problems arose if some functionality of C++11 <future> were used. It >> led to certain symbols being statically linked into the shared library >> which clashed with other shared libraries that had the same symbols in the >> same address space, linked against a different version of libstdc++ >> (specifically, tensorflow's). There is some discussion about this in >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3177. >> >> This might happen in the future again if pre g++ 5 stdlib is mixed with >> post g++ 5. But with manylinux20xx we will be in a better situation if the >> major packages (TensorFlow, PyTorch, Ray, Arrow) standardize on g++ >= 5. >> Older manylinux1 packages from pip might still clash but we can flag them >> as not manylinux20xx compatible and work towards them being fixed. >> >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:37 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Le 06/02/2019 à 14:27, Manuel Klimek a écrit : >>> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:38 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org >>> > <mailto:anto...@python.org>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Le 06/02/2019 à 01:06, Philipp Moritz a écrit : >>> > > Thanks for the meeting! One question concerning a point that is >>> still >>> > > not super clear to me: >>> > > >>> > > Say we define a new manylinux standard based on gcc >=5 (with >>> stable >>> > > c++11 support). There will still be a lot of wheels form the >>> > manylinux1 >>> > > days that are built against gcc 4.8 that might use the c++11 >>> features >>> > > before they became stable. How do we prevent bugs from that? Is >>> > the plan >>> > > to convince everybody who uses these c++11 features to use the >>> new >>> > > manylinux standard? >>> > >>> > Yes, that's a bit of a problem. >>> > >>> > This discussion arised from the incompatibility between Tensorflow >>> > wheels (compiled with a later toolchain) and other Python wheels >>> > (compiled with a manylinux1-compatible toolchain). >>> > >>> > >>> > Do you know where these communicate with std types? (due to ABI tagging >>> > loading them into the same process should work, right?) >>> >>> They don't. I don't remember the specifics, Philipp Moritz might know >>> more about this. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Antoine. >>> >>
