Skip to content

Initial CMake support#220

Closed
niclimcy wants to merge 264 commits intobitsandbytes-foundation:mainfrom
niclimcy:main
Closed

Initial CMake support#220
niclimcy wants to merge 264 commits intobitsandbytes-foundation:mainfrom
niclimcy:main

Conversation

@niclimcy
Copy link
Copy Markdown

  • For initial win32 support
  • Change pythonInterface file extension to cpp because it is C++
  • Requires external dependency pthread-win32 for Windows builds

TimDettmers and others added 30 commits October 21, 2021 22:08
[FIX] passing of sparse in StableEmbedding
Remove unused imports, fix NotImplementedError
Add a CPU-only build option
TimDettmers and others added 23 commits January 2, 2023 13:22
Add `device` and `dtype` parameters to `StableEmbedding`
Import missing warn function
improve install instructions
Add cuda12x to the list of targets
Update compile_from_source.md to mention cuda12x target
- For initial win32 support
- Change pythonInterface file extension to cpp because it is C++
- Requires external dependency pthread-win32 for Windows builds
@rickardp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

rickardp commented Apr 15, 2023

Consider changing phthread into canonical std::thread. There's also some scary malloc going on in that code, maybe take the opportunity to use the c++ primitives?

EDIT: I merged your branch into the portability PR I opened, and I added the above, like this
rickardp@6f88f41

If you check #257, I added cpuonly build and CUDA detection. This way we could support building all targets from cmake. I also updated the output paths to match the old makefile.

@TimDettmers
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Thank you for this contribution! We will probably want to change to cmake and this would be an important starting point. How does this relate to #908 and #229. Thanks @rickardp for your feedback

@niclimcy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

niclimcy commented Jan 2, 2024

Thank you for this contribution! We will probably want to change to cmake and this would be an important starting point. How does this relate to #908 and #229. Thanks @rickardp for your feedback

Those were seperate attempts, I think you should choose the PR that is the most complete (definitely not mine).

@TimDettmers TimDettmers mentioned this pull request Jan 2, 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.