GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds - #40578

Merged
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl
Mar 16, 2024
Merged

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds#40578
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl

Conversation

@bkietz

@bkietzbkietz commented Mar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Rationale for this change

When linking statically, pkg-config doesn't pick up the new dependency on libdl introduced by #39067

This produces unresolved symbol errors

What changes are included in this PR?

Addition of -ldl to ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE to ensure linkage to the necessary library

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

no

@bkietz
bkietz requested review from felipecrv and kouMarch 15, 2024 15:02
@bkietzbkietz self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ GitHub issue #40577has no components, please add labels for components.

Comment threadcpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt Outdated
string(APPEND ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS "${ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE}")
set(ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE "")

string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")

@koukouMar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we put this to this block, this flag isn't used when -DARROW_BUILD_SHARED=ON -DARROW_BUILD_STATIC=ON is used. Does this work?

diff --git a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
index c5449d9956..4329d66821 100644
--- a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt+++ b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ if(ARROW_ENABLE_THREADING)
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS Threads::Threads)
endif()
-if(NOT MSVC_TOOLCHAIN)+if(CMAKE_DL_LIBS)
list(APPEND ARROW_SHARED_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
+ string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")
endif()
set(ARROW_TEST_LINK_TOOLCHAIN ${ARROW_GTEST_GMOCK} ${ARROW_GTEST_GTEST_MAIN})

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what's the utility of building both shared and static and libraries?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we build Apache Arrow C++ for single propose (e.g. creating a PyArrow wheel), we don't need to build shared and static libraries. But if we want to use multiple proposes (e.g. using it from Python and R), we may need shared and static libraries.

Most packaging systems (deb, rpm and so on) provide both of shared and static libraries to support multiple proposes. If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice to build shared and static libraries.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice

I think you'd only be able to reuse the object files, which should be doable by having adjacent build directories both using ccache. We can't even reuse object files on WIN32 because we add -DARROW_STATIC there and so the object files linked into arrow_static are different from those linked into arrow_shared.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a packager view, reusability of object files isn't so important. Composing shared/static libraries to one package family (libarrow15 and libarrow-dev for .deb) is important. Building twice for shared and static libraries isn't easy to compose...

For example:

  • Both of cmake --install for shared library and cmake --install for static library install not only library files but also header files, data files and so on. Most of header files will be same but some files may be different. In our case, arrow/util/config.h may be different if we have some #cmakedefines that depend on library type. If there are different files, package for shared library and package for static library will be conflicted.
  • CMake packages for shared library and static library are different. We need to use different CMake package names (e.g. ArrowShared for shared library and ArrowStatic for static library) to avoid conflicting them.
  • ...

GoogleTest is a product that doesn't support building both of shared and static libraries at once.
MSYS2 package of it building GoogleTest twice:

The package provides only CMake package for shared library: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/ad99b751d11d027345f6da4c91b4c33d5ad1ac7d/mingw-w64-gtest/PKGBUILD#L70-L71
It means that users can't use static library version via its CMake package.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes awaiting change review Awaiting change review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Mar 15, 2024

@assignUserassignUser left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really at some point move a way from the multiple list with dozens of targets or other lists in them ^_^ but that's of course a topic for some other time.

@assignUser

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit example-cpp-minimal-build-static*

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 00c4b06

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-fa21affe42

TaskStatus
example-cpp-minimal-build-staticGitHub Actions
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependencyGitHub Actions

@bkietz
bkietz merged commit 2224a29 into apache:mainMar 16, 2024
@bkietzbkietz removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Mar 16, 2024
@bkietz
bkietz deleted the 40577-pkg-config-libdl branch March 16, 2024 01:20
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the awaiting changes Awaiting changes label Mar 16, 2024
@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2224a29.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 67 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for freeto 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.

4 participants

@bkietz@assignUser@kou@felipecrv
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Skip to content

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds - #40578

Merged
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl
Mar 16, 2024
Merged

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds#40578
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl

Conversation

@bkietz

@bkietzbkietz commented Mar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Rationale for this change

When linking statically, pkg-config doesn't pick up the new dependency on libdl introduced by #39067

This produces unresolved symbol errors

What changes are included in this PR?

Addition of -ldl to ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE to ensure linkage to the necessary library

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

no

@bkietz
bkietz requested review from felipecrv and kouMarch 15, 2024 15:02
@bkietzbkietz self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ GitHub issue #40577has no components, please add labels for components.

Comment threadcpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt Outdated
string(APPEND ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS "${ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE}")
set(ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE "")

string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")

@koukouMar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we put this to this block, this flag isn't used when -DARROW_BUILD_SHARED=ON -DARROW_BUILD_STATIC=ON is used. Does this work?

diff --git a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
index c5449d9956..4329d66821 100644
--- a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt+++ b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ if(ARROW_ENABLE_THREADING)
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS Threads::Threads)
endif()
-if(NOT MSVC_TOOLCHAIN)+if(CMAKE_DL_LIBS)
list(APPEND ARROW_SHARED_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
+ string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")
endif()
set(ARROW_TEST_LINK_TOOLCHAIN ${ARROW_GTEST_GMOCK} ${ARROW_GTEST_GTEST_MAIN})

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what's the utility of building both shared and static and libraries?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we build Apache Arrow C++ for single propose (e.g. creating a PyArrow wheel), we don't need to build shared and static libraries. But if we want to use multiple proposes (e.g. using it from Python and R), we may need shared and static libraries.

Most packaging systems (deb, rpm and so on) provide both of shared and static libraries to support multiple proposes. If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice to build shared and static libraries.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice

I think you'd only be able to reuse the object files, which should be doable by having adjacent build directories both using ccache. We can't even reuse object files on WIN32 because we add -DARROW_STATIC there and so the object files linked into arrow_static are different from those linked into arrow_shared.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a packager view, reusability of object files isn't so important. Composing shared/static libraries to one package family (libarrow15 and libarrow-dev for .deb) is important. Building twice for shared and static libraries isn't easy to compose...

For example:

  • Both of cmake --install for shared library and cmake --install for static library install not only library files but also header files, data files and so on. Most of header files will be same but some files may be different. In our case, arrow/util/config.h may be different if we have some #cmakedefines that depend on library type. If there are different files, package for shared library and package for static library will be conflicted.
  • CMake packages for shared library and static library are different. We need to use different CMake package names (e.g. ArrowShared for shared library and ArrowStatic for static library) to avoid conflicting them.
  • ...

GoogleTest is a product that doesn't support building both of shared and static libraries at once.
MSYS2 package of it building GoogleTest twice:

The package provides only CMake package for shared library: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/ad99b751d11d027345f6da4c91b4c33d5ad1ac7d/mingw-w64-gtest/PKGBUILD#L70-L71
It means that users can't use static library version via its CMake package.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes awaiting change review Awaiting change review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Mar 15, 2024

@assignUserassignUser left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really at some point move a way from the multiple list with dozens of targets or other lists in them ^_^ but that's of course a topic for some other time.

@assignUser

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit example-cpp-minimal-build-static*

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 00c4b06

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-fa21affe42

TaskStatus
example-cpp-minimal-build-staticGitHub Actions
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependencyGitHub Actions

@bkietz
bkietz merged commit 2224a29 into apache:mainMar 16, 2024
@bkietzbkietz removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Mar 16, 2024
@bkietz
bkietz deleted the 40577-pkg-config-libdl branch March 16, 2024 01:20
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the awaiting changes Awaiting changes label Mar 16, 2024
@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2224a29.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 67 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for freeto 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.

4 participants

@bkietz@assignUser@kou@felipecrv
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds - #40578

Merged
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl
Mar 16, 2024
Merged

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds#40578
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl

Conversation

@bkietz

@bkietzbkietz commented Mar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Rationale for this change

When linking statically, pkg-config doesn't pick up the new dependency on libdl introduced by #39067

This produces unresolved symbol errors

What changes are included in this PR?

Addition of -ldl to ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE to ensure linkage to the necessary library

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

no

@bkietz
bkietz requested review from felipecrv and kouMarch 15, 2024 15:02
@bkietzbkietz self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ GitHub issue #40577has no components, please add labels for components.

Comment threadcpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt Outdated
string(APPEND ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS "${ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE}")
set(ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE "")

string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")

@koukouMar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we put this to this block, this flag isn't used when -DARROW_BUILD_SHARED=ON -DARROW_BUILD_STATIC=ON is used. Does this work?

diff --git a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
index c5449d9956..4329d66821 100644
--- a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt+++ b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ if(ARROW_ENABLE_THREADING)
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS Threads::Threads)
endif()
-if(NOT MSVC_TOOLCHAIN)+if(CMAKE_DL_LIBS)
list(APPEND ARROW_SHARED_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
+ string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")
endif()
set(ARROW_TEST_LINK_TOOLCHAIN ${ARROW_GTEST_GMOCK} ${ARROW_GTEST_GTEST_MAIN})

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what's the utility of building both shared and static and libraries?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we build Apache Arrow C++ for single propose (e.g. creating a PyArrow wheel), we don't need to build shared and static libraries. But if we want to use multiple proposes (e.g. using it from Python and R), we may need shared and static libraries.

Most packaging systems (deb, rpm and so on) provide both of shared and static libraries to support multiple proposes. If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice to build shared and static libraries.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice

I think you'd only be able to reuse the object files, which should be doable by having adjacent build directories both using ccache. We can't even reuse object files on WIN32 because we add -DARROW_STATIC there and so the object files linked into arrow_static are different from those linked into arrow_shared.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a packager view, reusability of object files isn't so important. Composing shared/static libraries to one package family (libarrow15 and libarrow-dev for .deb) is important. Building twice for shared and static libraries isn't easy to compose...

For example:

  • Both of cmake --install for shared library and cmake --install for static library install not only library files but also header files, data files and so on. Most of header files will be same but some files may be different. In our case, arrow/util/config.h may be different if we have some #cmakedefines that depend on library type. If there are different files, package for shared library and package for static library will be conflicted.
  • CMake packages for shared library and static library are different. We need to use different CMake package names (e.g. ArrowShared for shared library and ArrowStatic for static library) to avoid conflicting them.
  • ...

GoogleTest is a product that doesn't support building both of shared and static libraries at once.
MSYS2 package of it building GoogleTest twice:

The package provides only CMake package for shared library: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/ad99b751d11d027345f6da4c91b4c33d5ad1ac7d/mingw-w64-gtest/PKGBUILD#L70-L71
It means that users can't use static library version via its CMake package.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes awaiting change review Awaiting change review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Mar 15, 2024

@assignUserassignUser left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really at some point move a way from the multiple list with dozens of targets or other lists in them ^_^ but that's of course a topic for some other time.

@assignUser

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit example-cpp-minimal-build-static*

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 00c4b06

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-fa21affe42

TaskStatus
example-cpp-minimal-build-staticGitHub Actions
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependencyGitHub Actions

@bkietz
bkietz merged commit 2224a29 into apache:mainMar 16, 2024
@bkietzbkietz removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Mar 16, 2024
@bkietz
bkietz deleted the 40577-pkg-config-libdl branch March 16, 2024 01:20
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the awaiting changes Awaiting changes label Mar 16, 2024
@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2224a29.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 67 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for freeto 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.

4 participants

@bkietz@assignUser@kou@felipecrv
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds - #40578

Merged
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl
Mar 16, 2024
Merged

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds#40578
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl

Conversation

@bkietz

@bkietzbkietz commented Mar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Rationale for this change

When linking statically, pkg-config doesn't pick up the new dependency on libdl introduced by #39067

This produces unresolved symbol errors

What changes are included in this PR?

Addition of -ldl to ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE to ensure linkage to the necessary library

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

no

@bkietz
bkietz requested review from felipecrv and kouMarch 15, 2024 15:02
@bkietzbkietz self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ GitHub issue #40577has no components, please add labels for components.

Comment threadcpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt Outdated
string(APPEND ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS "${ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE}")
set(ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE "")

string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")

@koukouMar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we put this to this block, this flag isn't used when -DARROW_BUILD_SHARED=ON -DARROW_BUILD_STATIC=ON is used. Does this work?

diff --git a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
index c5449d9956..4329d66821 100644
--- a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt+++ b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ if(ARROW_ENABLE_THREADING)
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS Threads::Threads)
endif()
-if(NOT MSVC_TOOLCHAIN)+if(CMAKE_DL_LIBS)
list(APPEND ARROW_SHARED_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
+ string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")
endif()
set(ARROW_TEST_LINK_TOOLCHAIN ${ARROW_GTEST_GMOCK} ${ARROW_GTEST_GTEST_MAIN})

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what's the utility of building both shared and static and libraries?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we build Apache Arrow C++ for single propose (e.g. creating a PyArrow wheel), we don't need to build shared and static libraries. But if we want to use multiple proposes (e.g. using it from Python and R), we may need shared and static libraries.

Most packaging systems (deb, rpm and so on) provide both of shared and static libraries to support multiple proposes. If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice to build shared and static libraries.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice

I think you'd only be able to reuse the object files, which should be doable by having adjacent build directories both using ccache. We can't even reuse object files on WIN32 because we add -DARROW_STATIC there and so the object files linked into arrow_static are different from those linked into arrow_shared.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a packager view, reusability of object files isn't so important. Composing shared/static libraries to one package family (libarrow15 and libarrow-dev for .deb) is important. Building twice for shared and static libraries isn't easy to compose...

For example:

  • Both of cmake --install for shared library and cmake --install for static library install not only library files but also header files, data files and so on. Most of header files will be same but some files may be different. In our case, arrow/util/config.h may be different if we have some #cmakedefines that depend on library type. If there are different files, package for shared library and package for static library will be conflicted.
  • CMake packages for shared library and static library are different. We need to use different CMake package names (e.g. ArrowShared for shared library and ArrowStatic for static library) to avoid conflicting them.
  • ...

GoogleTest is a product that doesn't support building both of shared and static libraries at once.
MSYS2 package of it building GoogleTest twice:

The package provides only CMake package for shared library: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/ad99b751d11d027345f6da4c91b4c33d5ad1ac7d/mingw-w64-gtest/PKGBUILD#L70-L71
It means that users can't use static library version via its CMake package.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes awaiting change review Awaiting change review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Mar 15, 2024

@assignUserassignUser left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really at some point move a way from the multiple list with dozens of targets or other lists in them ^_^ but that's of course a topic for some other time.

@assignUser

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit example-cpp-minimal-build-static*

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 00c4b06

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-fa21affe42

TaskStatus
example-cpp-minimal-build-staticGitHub Actions
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependencyGitHub Actions

@bkietz
bkietz merged commit 2224a29 into apache:mainMar 16, 2024
@bkietzbkietz removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Mar 16, 2024
@bkietz
bkietz deleted the 40577-pkg-config-libdl branch March 16, 2024 01:20
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the awaiting changes Awaiting changes label Mar 16, 2024
@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2224a29.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 67 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for freeto 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.

4 participants

@bkietz@assignUser@kou@felipecrv
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Skip to content

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds - #40578

Merged
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl
Mar 16, 2024
Merged

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds#40578
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl

Conversation

@bkietz

@bkietzbkietz commented Mar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Rationale for this change

When linking statically, pkg-config doesn't pick up the new dependency on libdl introduced by #39067

This produces unresolved symbol errors

What changes are included in this PR?

Addition of -ldl to ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE to ensure linkage to the necessary library

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

no

@bkietz
bkietz requested review from felipecrv and kouMarch 15, 2024 15:02
@bkietzbkietz self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ GitHub issue #40577has no components, please add labels for components.

Comment threadcpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt Outdated
string(APPEND ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS "${ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE}")
set(ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE "")

string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")

@koukouMar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we put this to this block, this flag isn't used when -DARROW_BUILD_SHARED=ON -DARROW_BUILD_STATIC=ON is used. Does this work?

diff --git a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
index c5449d9956..4329d66821 100644
--- a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt+++ b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ if(ARROW_ENABLE_THREADING)
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS Threads::Threads)
endif()
-if(NOT MSVC_TOOLCHAIN)+if(CMAKE_DL_LIBS)
list(APPEND ARROW_SHARED_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
+ string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")
endif()
set(ARROW_TEST_LINK_TOOLCHAIN ${ARROW_GTEST_GMOCK} ${ARROW_GTEST_GTEST_MAIN})

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what's the utility of building both shared and static and libraries?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we build Apache Arrow C++ for single propose (e.g. creating a PyArrow wheel), we don't need to build shared and static libraries. But if we want to use multiple proposes (e.g. using it from Python and R), we may need shared and static libraries.

Most packaging systems (deb, rpm and so on) provide both of shared and static libraries to support multiple proposes. If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice to build shared and static libraries.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice

I think you'd only be able to reuse the object files, which should be doable by having adjacent build directories both using ccache. We can't even reuse object files on WIN32 because we add -DARROW_STATIC there and so the object files linked into arrow_static are different from those linked into arrow_shared.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a packager view, reusability of object files isn't so important. Composing shared/static libraries to one package family (libarrow15 and libarrow-dev for .deb) is important. Building twice for shared and static libraries isn't easy to compose...

For example:

  • Both of cmake --install for shared library and cmake --install for static library install not only library files but also header files, data files and so on. Most of header files will be same but some files may be different. In our case, arrow/util/config.h may be different if we have some #cmakedefines that depend on library type. If there are different files, package for shared library and package for static library will be conflicted.
  • CMake packages for shared library and static library are different. We need to use different CMake package names (e.g. ArrowShared for shared library and ArrowStatic for static library) to avoid conflicting them.
  • ...

GoogleTest is a product that doesn't support building both of shared and static libraries at once.
MSYS2 package of it building GoogleTest twice:

The package provides only CMake package for shared library: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/ad99b751d11d027345f6da4c91b4c33d5ad1ac7d/mingw-w64-gtest/PKGBUILD#L70-L71
It means that users can't use static library version via its CMake package.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes awaiting change review Awaiting change review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Mar 15, 2024

@assignUserassignUser left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really at some point move a way from the multiple list with dozens of targets or other lists in them ^_^ but that's of course a topic for some other time.

@assignUser

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit example-cpp-minimal-build-static*

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 00c4b06

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-fa21affe42

TaskStatus
example-cpp-minimal-build-staticGitHub Actions
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependencyGitHub Actions

@bkietz
bkietz merged commit 2224a29 into apache:mainMar 16, 2024
@bkietzbkietz removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Mar 16, 2024
@bkietz
bkietz deleted the 40577-pkg-config-libdl branch March 16, 2024 01:20
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the awaiting changes Awaiting changes label Mar 16, 2024
@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2224a29.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 67 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for freeto 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.

4 participants

@bkietz@assignUser@kou@felipecrv
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds - #40578

Merged
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl
Mar 16, 2024
Merged

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds#40578
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl

Conversation

@bkietz

@bkietzbkietz commented Mar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Rationale for this change

When linking statically, pkg-config doesn't pick up the new dependency on libdl introduced by #39067

This produces unresolved symbol errors

What changes are included in this PR?

Addition of -ldl to ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE to ensure linkage to the necessary library

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

no

@bkietz
bkietz requested review from felipecrv and kouMarch 15, 2024 15:02
@bkietzbkietz self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ GitHub issue #40577has no components, please add labels for components.

Comment threadcpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt Outdated
string(APPEND ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS "${ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE}")
set(ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE "")

string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")

@koukouMar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we put this to this block, this flag isn't used when -DARROW_BUILD_SHARED=ON -DARROW_BUILD_STATIC=ON is used. Does this work?

diff --git a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
index c5449d9956..4329d66821 100644
--- a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt+++ b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ if(ARROW_ENABLE_THREADING)
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS Threads::Threads)
endif()
-if(NOT MSVC_TOOLCHAIN)+if(CMAKE_DL_LIBS)
list(APPEND ARROW_SHARED_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
+ string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")
endif()
set(ARROW_TEST_LINK_TOOLCHAIN ${ARROW_GTEST_GMOCK} ${ARROW_GTEST_GTEST_MAIN})

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what's the utility of building both shared and static and libraries?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we build Apache Arrow C++ for single propose (e.g. creating a PyArrow wheel), we don't need to build shared and static libraries. But if we want to use multiple proposes (e.g. using it from Python and R), we may need shared and static libraries.

Most packaging systems (deb, rpm and so on) provide both of shared and static libraries to support multiple proposes. If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice to build shared and static libraries.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice

I think you'd only be able to reuse the object files, which should be doable by having adjacent build directories both using ccache. We can't even reuse object files on WIN32 because we add -DARROW_STATIC there and so the object files linked into arrow_static are different from those linked into arrow_shared.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a packager view, reusability of object files isn't so important. Composing shared/static libraries to one package family (libarrow15 and libarrow-dev for .deb) is important. Building twice for shared and static libraries isn't easy to compose...

For example:

  • Both of cmake --install for shared library and cmake --install for static library install not only library files but also header files, data files and so on. Most of header files will be same but some files may be different. In our case, arrow/util/config.h may be different if we have some #cmakedefines that depend on library type. If there are different files, package for shared library and package for static library will be conflicted.
  • CMake packages for shared library and static library are different. We need to use different CMake package names (e.g. ArrowShared for shared library and ArrowStatic for static library) to avoid conflicting them.
  • ...

GoogleTest is a product that doesn't support building both of shared and static libraries at once.
MSYS2 package of it building GoogleTest twice:

The package provides only CMake package for shared library: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/ad99b751d11d027345f6da4c91b4c33d5ad1ac7d/mingw-w64-gtest/PKGBUILD#L70-L71
It means that users can't use static library version via its CMake package.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes awaiting change review Awaiting change review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Mar 15, 2024

@assignUserassignUser left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really at some point move a way from the multiple list with dozens of targets or other lists in them ^_^ but that's of course a topic for some other time.

@assignUser

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit example-cpp-minimal-build-static*

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 00c4b06

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-fa21affe42

TaskStatus
example-cpp-minimal-build-staticGitHub Actions
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependencyGitHub Actions

@bkietz
bkietz merged commit 2224a29 into apache:mainMar 16, 2024
@bkietzbkietz removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Mar 16, 2024
@bkietz
bkietz deleted the 40577-pkg-config-libdl branch March 16, 2024 01:20
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the awaiting changes Awaiting changes label Mar 16, 2024
@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2224a29.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 67 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for freeto 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.

4 participants

@bkietz@assignUser@kou@felipecrv
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds - #40578

Merged
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl
Mar 16, 2024
Merged

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds#40578
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl

Conversation

@bkietz

@bkietzbkietz commented Mar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Rationale for this change

When linking statically, pkg-config doesn't pick up the new dependency on libdl introduced by #39067

This produces unresolved symbol errors

What changes are included in this PR?

Addition of -ldl to ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE to ensure linkage to the necessary library

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

no

@bkietz
bkietz requested review from felipecrv and kouMarch 15, 2024 15:02
@bkietzbkietz self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ GitHub issue #40577has no components, please add labels for components.

Comment threadcpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt Outdated
string(APPEND ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS "${ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE}")
set(ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE "")

string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")

@koukouMar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we put this to this block, this flag isn't used when -DARROW_BUILD_SHARED=ON -DARROW_BUILD_STATIC=ON is used. Does this work?

diff --git a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
index c5449d9956..4329d66821 100644
--- a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt+++ b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ if(ARROW_ENABLE_THREADING)
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS Threads::Threads)
endif()
-if(NOT MSVC_TOOLCHAIN)+if(CMAKE_DL_LIBS)
list(APPEND ARROW_SHARED_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
+ string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")
endif()
set(ARROW_TEST_LINK_TOOLCHAIN ${ARROW_GTEST_GMOCK} ${ARROW_GTEST_GTEST_MAIN})

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what's the utility of building both shared and static and libraries?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we build Apache Arrow C++ for single propose (e.g. creating a PyArrow wheel), we don't need to build shared and static libraries. But if we want to use multiple proposes (e.g. using it from Python and R), we may need shared and static libraries.

Most packaging systems (deb, rpm and so on) provide both of shared and static libraries to support multiple proposes. If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice to build shared and static libraries.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice

I think you'd only be able to reuse the object files, which should be doable by having adjacent build directories both using ccache. We can't even reuse object files on WIN32 because we add -DARROW_STATIC there and so the object files linked into arrow_static are different from those linked into arrow_shared.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a packager view, reusability of object files isn't so important. Composing shared/static libraries to one package family (libarrow15 and libarrow-dev for .deb) is important. Building twice for shared and static libraries isn't easy to compose...

For example:

  • Both of cmake --install for shared library and cmake --install for static library install not only library files but also header files, data files and so on. Most of header files will be same but some files may be different. In our case, arrow/util/config.h may be different if we have some #cmakedefines that depend on library type. If there are different files, package for shared library and package for static library will be conflicted.
  • CMake packages for shared library and static library are different. We need to use different CMake package names (e.g. ArrowShared for shared library and ArrowStatic for static library) to avoid conflicting them.
  • ...

GoogleTest is a product that doesn't support building both of shared and static libraries at once.
MSYS2 package of it building GoogleTest twice:

The package provides only CMake package for shared library: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/ad99b751d11d027345f6da4c91b4c33d5ad1ac7d/mingw-w64-gtest/PKGBUILD#L70-L71
It means that users can't use static library version via its CMake package.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes awaiting change review Awaiting change review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Mar 15, 2024

@assignUserassignUser left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really at some point move a way from the multiple list with dozens of targets or other lists in them ^_^ but that's of course a topic for some other time.

@assignUser

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit example-cpp-minimal-build-static*

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 00c4b06

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-fa21affe42

TaskStatus
example-cpp-minimal-build-staticGitHub Actions
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependencyGitHub Actions

@bkietz
bkietz merged commit 2224a29 into apache:mainMar 16, 2024
@bkietzbkietz removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Mar 16, 2024
@bkietz
bkietz deleted the 40577-pkg-config-libdl branch March 16, 2024 01:20
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the awaiting changes Awaiting changes label Mar 16, 2024
@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2224a29.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 67 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for freeto 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.

4 participants

@bkietz@assignUser@kou@felipecrv
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
Skip to content

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds - #40578

Merged
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl
Mar 16, 2024
Merged

GH-40577: [C++] Ensure pkg-config flags include -ldl for static builds#40578
bkietz merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
bkietz:40577-pkg-config-libdl

Conversation

@bkietz

@bkietzbkietz commented Mar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Rationale for this change

When linking statically, pkg-config doesn't pick up the new dependency on libdl introduced by #39067

This produces unresolved symbol errors

What changes are included in this PR?

Addition of -ldl to ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE to ensure linkage to the necessary library

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

no

@bkietz
bkietz requested review from felipecrv and kouMarch 15, 2024 15:02
@bkietzbkietz self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ GitHub issue #40577has no components, please add labels for components.

Comment threadcpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt Outdated
string(APPEND ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS "${ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE}")
set(ARROW_TESTING_PC_CFLAGS_PRIVATE "")

string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")

@koukouMar 15, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we put this to this block, this flag isn't used when -DARROW_BUILD_SHARED=ON -DARROW_BUILD_STATIC=ON is used. Does this work?

diff --git a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
index c5449d9956..4329d66821 100644
--- a/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt+++ b/cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ if(ARROW_ENABLE_THREADING)
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS Threads::Threads)
endif()
-if(NOT MSVC_TOOLCHAIN)+if(CMAKE_DL_LIBS)
list(APPEND ARROW_SHARED_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
list(APPEND ARROW_STATIC_INSTALL_INTERFACE_LIBS ${CMAKE_DL_LIBS})
+ string(APPEND ARROW_PC_LIBS_PRIVATE " -l${CMAKE_DL_LIBS}")
endif()
set(ARROW_TEST_LINK_TOOLCHAIN ${ARROW_GTEST_GMOCK} ${ARROW_GTEST_GTEST_MAIN})

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what's the utility of building both shared and static and libraries?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we build Apache Arrow C++ for single propose (e.g. creating a PyArrow wheel), we don't need to build shared and static libraries. But if we want to use multiple proposes (e.g. using it from Python and R), we may need shared and static libraries.

Most packaging systems (deb, rpm and so on) provide both of shared and static libraries to support multiple proposes. If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice to build shared and static libraries.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Apache Arrow C++ supports building both shared and static library, they don't need to build Apache Arrow C++ twice

I think you'd only be able to reuse the object files, which should be doable by having adjacent build directories both using ccache. We can't even reuse object files on WIN32 because we add -DARROW_STATIC there and so the object files linked into arrow_static are different from those linked into arrow_shared.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a packager view, reusability of object files isn't so important. Composing shared/static libraries to one package family (libarrow15 and libarrow-dev for .deb) is important. Building twice for shared and static libraries isn't easy to compose...

For example:

  • Both of cmake --install for shared library and cmake --install for static library install not only library files but also header files, data files and so on. Most of header files will be same but some files may be different. In our case, arrow/util/config.h may be different if we have some #cmakedefines that depend on library type. If there are different files, package for shared library and package for static library will be conflicted.
  • CMake packages for shared library and static library are different. We need to use different CMake package names (e.g. ArrowShared for shared library and ArrowStatic for static library) to avoid conflicting them.
  • ...

GoogleTest is a product that doesn't support building both of shared and static libraries at once.
MSYS2 package of it building GoogleTest twice:

The package provides only CMake package for shared library: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/ad99b751d11d027345f6da4c91b4c33d5ad1ac7d/mingw-w64-gtest/PKGBUILD#L70-L71
It means that users can't use static library version via its CMake package.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting change review Awaiting change review awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes awaiting change review Awaiting change review labels Mar 15, 2024
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Mar 15, 2024

@assignUserassignUser left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really at some point move a way from the multiple list with dozens of targets or other lists in them ^_^ but that's of course a topic for some other time.

@assignUser

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit example-cpp-minimal-build-static*

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 00c4b06

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-fa21affe42

TaskStatus
example-cpp-minimal-build-staticGitHub Actions
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependencyGitHub Actions

@bkietz
bkietz merged commit 2224a29 into apache:mainMar 16, 2024
@bkietzbkietz removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Mar 16, 2024
@bkietz
bkietz deleted the 40577-pkg-config-libdl branch March 16, 2024 01:20
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the awaiting changes Awaiting changes label Mar 16, 2024
@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2224a29.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 67 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

Sign up for freeto 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.

4 participants

@bkietz@assignUser@kou@felipecrv