char8_t: support glibc <2.36 #163
Open
cwsmith wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Cameron Smith <smithc11@rpi.edu>
Collaborator
|
@cwsmith Thanks for the report and for the proposal! I believe there is a better way to approach this fix. Could you test my branch |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR addresses a compilation issue with the nvtx 3.3.0 package, with the python bindings enabled (as a dep of py-torch), when built with GCC 15.2.0 and glibc 2.34 on a RHEL9 system. IIUC, glibc 2.36 or newer is needed to use char8_t from the c20 standard (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2022-08/msg00000.html).
I was installing via spack and have a PR for a patch here: spack/spack-packages#4531
Note, I have not directly built/tested these changes outside of spack. Please let me know if there is some testing I can/should do on my end.
On our system, the following code reproduces the bug: