Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Move towards being able to build for x86 #1008
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
Move towards being able to build for x86 #1008
Changes from all commits
898f447
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume Onnx support (i.e. Microsoft.ML.Scoring) is 64-bit only. @shmoradims @jignparm - can you confirm?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If so it might be more self documenting to have something like
[ConditionalFact(typeof(TestUtilities), nameof(TestUtilities.IsOnnxScoringSupported))]
(and similar for TF)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was there a response to this feedback? I think this seems like a good idea. Or perhaps even deriving a few fact attributes like
OnnxFact
orTensorflowFact
, etc.In reply to: 222758463 [](ancestors = 222758463)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure its worth the added overhead to declare a new fact, which itself calls
Environment.Is64BitProcess
.The current conditional fact requires no "new" code and clearly defines that it is only supported on 64-bit processes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And when we try to add
Aarch64
(i.e.arm64
)?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then we will need to re-review any of the currently disabled tests and possibly change this based on whether they support ARM and/or ARM64.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are multiple advantages to taking the above approach:
The only disadvantage I see is the small amount of effort it is going to take to make this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@eerhardt, do you have any problem with logging a tracking issue to improve this?
I'd like to get this merged in order to unblock people and I don't think it's going to be as trivial as just defining some new attributes, since we will need to do something different for .NET Core (where we need to instead check the
S.R.InteropServices.Architecture
of the process)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
that's fine with me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#1220
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's add an issue to create baselines for those x86 tests, after checking that the difference is ok.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#1215
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be investigated and fixed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could perhaps be a follow up issue if @tannergooding isn't the right person to investigate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was there a follow up issue for this?
In reply to: 222758690 [](ancestors = 222758690)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've not logged issues for anything that requires followup yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#1216