As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to statically link to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid of the binary of unused functions? Though I don't know the full context of amalgamation, based on my knowledge on this feature I'm not aware of any difference in the end result, compared to the code-inlining approach that amalgamation takes.
-sz On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> wrote: > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all self-serving :) > > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the original > work and make it better. > > -1 to remove at this point > > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up for > discussion. > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A <tao.a...@intel.com> wrote: > > > Sorry to chime in. > > > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to merge it > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would be great > > if someone from this thread can help to review. > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303 > > > > thanks, > > -tao > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation > > > > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other use cases? > > > > -Marco > > > > Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 11. Sep. 2019, > > 11:57: > > > > > Hi Anirudh > > > > > > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that way to > > > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling > > > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the topic of > > > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence the > > > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who might > > > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian > > > <anirudh2...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Pedro, > > > > > > > > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for > > > > justification > > > for > > > > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where I > > > > see > > > ad > > > > hominems and disrespectful comments is your email. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy > > > > <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment > > > >> and destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take > > > >> action. It takes only one bad apple to ruin a community. > > > >> > > > >> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross > > > >> compiling with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or > > > >> "build.android_armv7". The only advantage of amalgamation is to > > > >> provide a smaller binary that we > > > could > > > >> accomplish with the C preprocessor. > > > >> > > > >> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting > > > >> MXNet > > > to > > > >> Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson, > > > >> Raspberry Pi and Android amongst many other topics. I have never > > > >> been disrespectful > > > to > > > >> anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about > > > >> amalgamation or > > > any > > > >> other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to > > > >> anyone > > > and > > > >> perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore, > > > >> do > > > us > > > >> all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my > > > >> respect, > > > step > > > >> up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others, > > > >> this including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be > > > >> positive > > > and > > > >> constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad > > > >> on > > > you. > > > >> I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or unasked for > > > technical > > > >> advice, which to be honest, showing poor judgment and ignorance. > > > >> Myself and others have come up with numbers, graphs, metrics and > > > >> arguments and have been met with dismissal, trolling and > > > >> sea-lioning. I have recieved your insults via public and private > > > >> channels (such as linkedin) as have others. This is not ok and has > > > >> to stop. If you have something personal against me or against your > > > >> former employer, this is not the right place > > > or > > > >> forum. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier > > > >> <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Pedro, > > > >> > > > > >> > While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in > > > >> > any > > > way, > > > >> > can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a > > > "hacky > > > >> > solution"? This is derogatory slang and the statement was not > > > supported > > > >> > with any justification for such name-calling. Someone spent a > > > >> > good > > > deal > > > >> of > > > >> > time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it > > > >> > worked > > > for > > > >> its > > > >> > purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original > > > >> > javascript > > > >> port > > > >> > as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their > > > >> > efforts "hacky". Please respect what came before. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for understanding, > > > >> > > > > >> > -Chris > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy < > > > >> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and > > > >> > > CI, > > > users > > > >> > > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in > > > >> > > Android, and instead they were able to use the cross compiled > > > >> > > docker build > > > >> > successfully. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Pedro. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
