Skip to content
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

CROSSTOOL setup differences between earlier or later of Bazel 0.17.1 #94

Open
pint1022 opened this issue Jan 31, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

Comments

@pint1022
Copy link

Hi, Hugh
I am working on porting OpenCL-coriander to Tensorflow v1.1. BTW, the 0.11 version should work with cudnn (tf-coriander currently under 'pint1022') now.
I just try to address an issue in the compiling process. By checking the calling stack of building process, there are some differences in the traces. Here is the summary of the differences:
tf_gpu_kernel_library rule:
(tf-coriander)

  1. gather_functor_gpu-hostraw.ll (cocl)
  2. gather_functor_gpu-hostpatched.ll (patch_hostside )
  3. gather_functor_gpu.cu.pic.o (llvm-4.0/bin/clang++)
    (tensorflow r1.1)
  4. gather_functor_gpu-hostraw.ll (llvm-4.0/bin/clang++)
  5. gather_functor_gpu-hostpatched.ll (patch_hostside )
  6. gather_functor_gpu.cu.pic.o (llvm-4.0/bin/clang++)
    one calls cocl, the other calls clang++ in step one.

The real issue is that there is a missing symbol error in the linker. for example:
this is in libcwiseop.lo
ArgMax<Eigen::GpuDevice, float, int>::Reduce2(Eigen::GpuDevice const&, Eigen::TensorMap<Eigen::Tensor<float const, 2, 1, int>
the caller in python.so looking for
ArgMax<Eigen::GpuDevice, float, int>::Reduce2(Eigen::GpuDevice const&, Eigen::TensorMap<Eigen::Tensor<float const, 2, 1, long>,

'int' vs 'long'.
My theory is that the two stages compiling causes Eigen::Index to be parsed and coded into the different types. The issue in the building traces shows that one calls 'cocl' the other 'clang++'.

do you have any clues or suggestions how it goes or where to look for the root-cause?

thanks,
steven

@hughperkins
Copy link
Owner

hughperkins commented Feb 2, 2019 via email

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants