Skip to content

Build pool libs as shared if umf is shared also #388

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

bratpiorka
Copy link
Contributor

@bratpiorka bratpiorka commented Mar 25, 2024

Description

Build memory pool libs (disjoint, scalable, etc.) as shared if the main libumf is also built as shared lib.

Ref: #387

Checklist

  • Code compiles without errors locally
  • All tests pass locally
  • CI workflows execute properly

@bratpiorka bratpiorka force-pushed the rrudnick_shared_pools branch 10 times, most recently from 36a7e01 to c8dd8bd Compare March 27, 2024 15:45
@bratpiorka bratpiorka force-pushed the rrudnick_shared_pools branch 4 times, most recently from 0bf0e43 to 9424202 Compare April 9, 2024 15:53
@vinser52
Copy link
Contributor

vinser52 commented Apr 9, 2024

Build memory pool libs (disjoint, scalable, etc.) as shared if the main libumf is also built as shared lib.

What is the reason for that?

@bratpiorka
Copy link
Contributor Author

Build memory pool libs (disjoint, scalable, etc.) as shared if the main libumf is also built as shared lib.

What is the reason for that?

I think we should either provide all libs as shared objects or none. Please think about what we will install in oneAPI toolkit. The discussion is here: #387

@bratpiorka bratpiorka force-pushed the rrudnick_shared_pools branch from 9424202 to e76cc25 Compare April 9, 2024 16:05
@vinser52
Copy link
Contributor

vinser52 commented Apr 9, 2024

I think we should either provide all libs as shared objects or none. Please think about what we will install in oneAPI toolkit. The discussion is here: #387

Ok, I have replied to the discussion thread #387.

@bratpiorka
Copy link
Contributor Author

closing this as we agreed in #387. that we don't want this change

@bratpiorka bratpiorka closed this Apr 10, 2024
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