Re: [VOLK] Release 2.5.1

[Marcus Müller]

Cursory glance at `git diff v2.5.0..v2.51 **/**.h` tells me you didn't change anything 
ABI-wise.


Cheers,
Marcus

On 14.02.22 13:38, Johannes Demel wrote:

Hi all,

while I did not run the ABI compliance checker to compare 2.5.0 vs 2.5.1 specifically, it 
is simple and can be done with this tool:

https://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/#ABI_Dumper
So far, we were able to keep the ABI compatible across VOLK 2.x.
Also, we didn't change any function signatures of existing functions.

It might be a worthwhile undertaking to add an ABI compliance checker to our CI.

The VOLK library is written in C. Here, we rely on C11. Also, we require cpu_features 
because detecting such features across systems and architectures is terribly difficult.


Then, the questions are: Why Boost, why C++17 at all?
We use tools around our library. The volk_profile utility and our tests are written in 
C++. Here, we need to write the profile results to a file. In the past, we used 
`boost::filesystem` to achieve this. `boost::filesystem` basically became part of C++17 
with `std::filesystem`. Thus, we use `std::filesystem` now.


Cheers
Johannes

On 13.02.22 12:08, Jeff Long wrote:

Fons - filesystem is used for the volk_profile utility.

Chris - do not assume ABI compatibility. A number of small things have changed in ".h" 
files.


On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:19 PM Chris Vine > wrote:


    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:40:26 +0100
    Johannes Demel mailto:de...@ant.uni-bremen.de>> wrote:
 > Hi everyone!
 >
 > You can find the news at
    https://www.libvolk.org/release-v251.html
     as well.
 >
 > We have a new VOLK release! We are happy to announce VOLK v2.5.1! We
 > want to thank all contributors. This release wouldn't have been
    possible
 > without them.

    Hi,

    Is this ABI compatible with volk-2.5.0 (or put another way, if I
    upgrade from volk-2.5.0 will I need to recompile gnuradio)?

    Chris

Re: [VOLK] Release 2.5.1

[Johannes Demel]

Hi all,

while I did not run the ABI compliance checker to compare 2.5.0 vs 2.5.1 
specifically, it is simple and can be done with this tool:

https://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/#ABI_Dumper
So far, we were able to keep the ABI compatible across VOLK 2.x.
Also, we didn't change any function signatures of existing functions.

It might be a worthwhile undertaking to add an ABI compliance checker to 
our CI.


The VOLK library is written in C. Here, we rely on C11. Also, we require 
cpu_features because detecting such features across systems and 
architectures is terribly difficult.


Then, the questions are: Why Boost, why C++17 at all?
We use tools around our library. The volk_profile utility and our tests 
are written in C++. Here, we need to write the profile results to a 
file. In the past, we used `boost::filesystem` to achieve this. 
`boost::filesystem` basically became part of C++17 with 
`std::filesystem`. Thus, we use `std::filesystem` now.


Cheers
Johannes

On 13.02.22 12:08, Jeff Long wrote:

Fons - filesystem is used for the volk_profile utility.

Chris - do not assume ABI compatibility. A number of small things have 
changed in ".h" files.


On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:19 PM Chris Vine > wrote:


On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:40:26 +0100
Johannes Demel mailto:de...@ant.uni-bremen.de>> wrote:
 > Hi everyone!
 >
 > You can find the news at
https://www.libvolk.org/release-v251.html
 as well.
 >
 > We have a new VOLK release! We are happy to announce VOLK v2.5.1! We
 > want to thank all contributors. This release wouldn't have been
possible
 > without them.

Hi,

Is this ABI compatible with volk-2.5.0 (or put another way, if I
upgrade from volk-2.5.0 will I need to recompile gnuradio)?

Chris

Re: [VOLK] Release 2.5.1

[Jeff Long]

Fons - filesystem is used for the volk_profile utility.

Chris - do not assume ABI compatibility. A number of small things have
changed in ".h" files.

On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:19 PM Chris Vine  wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:40:26 +0100
> Johannes Demel  wrote:
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > You can find the news at https://www.libvolk.org/release-v251.html as
> well.
> >
> > We have a new VOLK release! We are happy to announce VOLK v2.5.1! We
> > want to thank all contributors. This release wouldn't have been possible
> > without them.
>
> Hi,
>
> Is this ABI compatible with volk-2.5.0 (or put another way, if I
> upgrade from volk-2.5.0 will I need to recompile gnuradio)?
>
> Chris
>
>

Re: [VOLK] Release 2.5.1

[Chris Vine]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:40:26 +0100
Johannes Demel  wrote:
> Hi everyone!
> 
> You can find the news at https://www.libvolk.org/release-v251.html as well.
> 
> We have a new VOLK release! We are happy to announce VOLK v2.5.1! We 
> want to thank all contributors. This release wouldn't have been possible 
> without them.

Hi,

Is this ABI compatible with volk-2.5.0 (or put another way, if I
upgrade from volk-2.5.0 will I need to recompile gnuradio)?

Chris

Re: [VOLK] Release 2.5.1

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 11:40:26AM +0100, Johannes Demel wrote:

> In the past, we relied on Boost for several tasks in `volk_profile`. For
> years, we minimized Boost usage to `boost::filesystem`. We mostly switched
> to C++17 `std::filesystem` years ago. The last distribution in our CI system
> that required Boost to build VOLK, was Ubuntu 14.04. Thus, now is the time
> to remove the Boost dependency completely and rely on C++17 features.

I am not (yet) a user of VOLK, but interested. One thing that usually
puts me off when considering to use a library is excessive dependencies.

This may be a very naive question but I hope you can provide an answer.

Why does a library that provides numerical procedures using vector
instructions require anything from boost or C++17 ?  Or even file
operations at all ?

Even if this is just a build time dependency it seems odd... 

Ciao,

-- 
FA