Side note: it's not only STL containers, it's also any non-trivial
stdlib type that appears in headers.  Such as std::shared_ptr<>.

So I'm not sure the endeavour makes sense at all.  You'll have to
try and follow the libstdc++ ABI spec:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html

Regards

Antoine.


On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:12:02 +0200
Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:47:49 -0700
> Zhuo Peng <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > One might argue that everyone releasing manylinux1 packages should use
> > exactly the same compiler, as provided by the pypa docker image, however
> > the standard only specifies the maximum versions of corresponding
> > fundamental libraries [5]. Newer GCC versions could be backported to work
> > with older libraries [6].
> > 
> > A recent change in Arrow [7] has removed most (but not all [8]) of the STL
> > members in publicly accessible class declarations and will resolve our
> > immediate problem, but I wonder if there is, or there should be an explicit
> > policy on the ABI compatibility, especially regarding the usage of template
> > functions / classes in public interfaces?  
> 
> IMHO, the only reasonable policy for now is that there is no ABI
> compatibility.  If you'd like to benefit from the PyArrow binary
> packages, including the C++ API, then you need to use the same toolchain
> (or an ABI-compatible toolchain, but I'm afraid there's no clear
> specification of ABI compatibility in g++ / libstdc++ land).
> 
> > * Our wheel cannot pass “auditwheel repair”
> > 
> > I don’t think it’s correct to pull libarrow.so and libarrow_python.so into
> > our wheel and have user’s Python load both our libarrow.so and pyarrow’s,
> > but that’s what “auditwheel repair” attempts to do. But if we don’t allow
> > auditwheel to do so, it refuses to stamp on our wheel because it has
> > “external” dependencies.  
> 
> You know, I wish the scientific communities would stop producing wheels
> and instead encourage users to switch to conda.  The wheel paradigm is
> conceptually antiquated and is really a nuisance to package developers
> and maintainers.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Antoine.
> 
> 
> 



Reply via email to