Re: [cmake-developers] Proposal to disable link depends inference.
On 04/20/2017 05:16 PM, Matthew Hanna (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX) wrote:
> avoid adding the external to external edges
> https://gitlab.kitware.com/mhanna21/cmake/commit/2c7d2e33b6218e58f88957fb793ce0a781ec76aa
That sounds good. From the patch:
> + if (this->EntryList[depender_index].Target ||
> + this->EntryList[(int)*edge].Target) {
> +edges.push_back(*edge);
> + }
I think only the second condition is needed. To check, try adding:
assert(!this->EntryList[depender_index].Target);
there. I don't think internal targets can get an InferredDependSets
entry, according to logic in `cmComputeLinkDepends::AddLinkEntry`.
-Brad
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more
information on each offering, please visit:
CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Proposal to disable link depends inference.
After checking several approaches, it looks as though the number of edges in the inference algorithm is the bottleneck, regardless of the number of cycles inferred. In our particular case, the number of external dependencies far outnumbers the known, internal libraries. Also, since we are using pkg-config, the external dependencies are not well ordered, so inferences involving two external deps are bound to be misleading. Given that, the approach we are considering is to avoid adding the external to external edges, but still leave all edges that contain at least one known library. The desired effect is sketched out in the following commit: https://gitlab.kitware.com/mhanna21/cmake/commit/2c7d2e33b6218e58f88957fb793ce0a781ec76aa Thanks, Matthew From: mhann...@bloomberg.net At: 04/11/17 12:05:50 To: cmake-developers@cmake.org Subject: Re: [cmake-developers] Proposal to disable link depends inference. Yes, disabling the 'magic guessing' is the primary goal. I just wanted to test the waters before embarking on a patch. Will continue the conversation once I have a patch ready that solves our problem. Thanks, Matthew From: brad.k...@kitware.com At: 04/11/17 11:16:27 To: cmake-developers@cmake.org Subject: Re: [cmake-developers] Proposal to disable link depends inference. On 04/11/2017 09:34 AM, Matthew Hanna (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX) wrote: > The inference logic in cmComputeLinkDepends.cxx is both inefficient and > superfluous for our specific use case. I am proposing a global setting that > would disable the link computation entirely for those that wish to take full > responsibility of the ordering of dependencies. IIUC you're not talking about disabling the entire dependency analysis but instead just turning off the magic guessing of implicit dependencies based on observed order. Correct? Before we bikeshed the name and form of the setting, can you post a patch that just removes the logic outright so we can see exactly what you mean? Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Proposal to disable link depends inference.
Yes, disabling the 'magic guessing' is the primary goal. I just wanted to test the waters before embarking on a patch. Will continue the conversation once I have a patch ready that solves our problem. Thanks, Matthew From: brad.k...@kitware.com At: 04/11/17 11:16:27 To: cmake-developers@cmake.org Subject: Re: [cmake-developers] Proposal to disable link depends inference. On 04/11/2017 09:34 AM, Matthew Hanna (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX) wrote: > The inference logic in cmComputeLinkDepends.cxx is both inefficient and > superfluous for our specific use case. I am proposing a global setting that > would disable the link computation entirely for those that wish to take full > responsibility of the ordering of dependencies. IIUC you're not talking about disabling the entire dependency analysis but instead just turning off the magic guessing of implicit dependencies based on observed order. Correct? Before we bikeshed the name and form of the setting, can you post a patch that just removes the logic outright so we can see exactly what you mean? Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Proposal to disable link depends inference.
On 04/11/2017 09:34 AM, Matthew Hanna (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX) wrote: > The inference logic in cmComputeLinkDepends.cxx is both inefficient and > superfluous for our specific use case. I am proposing a global setting that > would disable the link computation entirely for those that wish to take full > responsibility of the ordering of dependencies. IIUC you're not talking about disabling the entire dependency analysis but instead just turning off the magic guessing of implicit dependencies based on observed order. Correct? Before we bikeshed the name and form of the setting, can you post a patch that just removes the logic outright so we can see exactly what you mean? Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
