Hi, Lucas, Yeah, I know of all these issues as we faced them while we were implementing compute API in C++. We have decided to avoid mangling/de-mangling hell and instead ask of user to manual register classes, so we can find and call propper methods.
Best Regards, Igor On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:19 AM, Lucas Beeler <lucas.bee...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Having (very unfortunately) done a boatload of C++ programming while I was > at university, there are some issues to consider here. One of the biggest > is compiler name mangling <https://en.wikipedia.org/ > wiki/Name_mangling#Real-world_effects_of_C++_name_mangling>. Now, I’m > guessing you’ve heard about this, but it’s a lot nastier than people think > it is. For example, you can’t link an object built with GCC on Linux to one > built with LLVM on Linux (though this may be changing with the introduction > of a “standard” Linux ABI and name mangling scheme, c.f. this Oracle > TechNet article <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/servers- > storage-dev/stablecplusplusabi-333927.html>). Essentially, C++ object > code built with different compilers—or even different versions of the same > compiler—have totally different name mangling schemes and ABIs. So we’d > need to pick one and stick with it. The Wikipedia article linked-to above > explains this problem better than I can. > > So we’d have to standardize on one compiler ABI, then build the native > code portions of our C++-to-JVM bridge with that compiler, such that object > code loaded from the client side during a compute invocation could be > dynamically linked to our native code interface on the server side, since > code built with different name mangling schemes and different ABIs can’t be > linked together. The most obvious choice is the GCC/Linux ABI, since most > of our users deploy on Linux and GCC comes as the standard compiler suite > on most distros. What’s more, IIRC, it’s possible to force Visual Studio on > Windows and LLVM on the Mac to output GCC Linux ABI-compliant code. This > way, we’d give our users the capability to run unit tests in CppUnit, etc. > on their development laptops and then have that same compiled object be > able to work seamlessly when our server side code loads it and links it > into the server C++ runtime. > > Hope that all makes sense. I’m happy to contribute to this effort. > > Take care, > Lucas > > -- > Lucas BEELER > Technical Consultant, Professional Services > GridGain Systems > www.gridgain.com > > > On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > It depends on which functionality is needed, as there are > > several versions of those methods. Some would require > > implementing of Cluster API, which is not present in C++ also. > > > > Best Regards, > > Igor > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Do we target it for 2.6 release? It shouldn't be time-consuming to > support > >> it, right? > >> > >> -- > >> Denis > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> Guys, > >>> > >>> I've created a ticket: [1] > >>> > >>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8273 > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Igor > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Is there a ticket? Let's create one if not. > >>>> > >>>> -Val > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > >>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Val, > >>>>> > >>>>> They are simply not implemented yet. I am not aware of concrete plans > >>> to > >>>>> support them. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Guys, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is there a way to run collocated compute job in C++? I can't find > >>>>>> affinityRun and affinityCall method in C++ compute API, am I > >> missing > >>>>>> something? If we really don't have them, is there any particular > >>> reason > >>>>> for > >>>>>> this and/or plans to add them? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Val > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
