GH-36641: [C++] Remove reference to acero from non-acero file #36650
Conversation
This file contains 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
…class bit_util in favor of the namespace bit_util
|
|
github-actions
bot
added
Component: C++
awaiting committer review
pitrou
reviewed
Jul 13, 2023
pitrou
approved these changes
Jul 13, 2023
Probably not, though it should be easy to enable one of them. AVX2 is probably available on most server x86 CPUs nowadays? |
|
I opened #36662 to exercise compile-time AVX2 on CI. |
|
@raulcd This would be nice to have in 13.0.0 if not too late. |
|
Thanks, yes, I will cherry-pick |
raulcd
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2023
### Rationale for this change Files in modules which do not depend on the acero module should not reference files inside the acero module. ### What changes are included in this PR? There were no changes to the body of any functions. I simply moved functions around so that the acero include was no longer needed. There were some conflicts that arose between the class `bit_util` and the namespace `bit_util` and so I got rid of the class in favor of the namespace as that is more similar to how we handle `bit_util` elsewhere. ### Are these changes tested? Sort of. I would like to add an AVX2 CI system as well. I'm not confident any of the CI builds are building with AVX2 enabled. Also, even if we have an AVX2 CI system it would not have caught this issue since the code was only needed definitions from the acero header and was not relying on any actual compiled symbols. However, I think setting up tests to catch this sort of invalid include are beyond the scope of this PR. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. * Closes: #36641 Lead-authored-by: Weston Pace <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]>
chelseajonesr
pushed a commit
to chelseajonesr/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2023
…pache#36650) ### Rationale for this change Files in modules which do not depend on the acero module should not reference files inside the acero module. ### What changes are included in this PR? There were no changes to the body of any functions. I simply moved functions around so that the acero include was no longer needed. There were some conflicts that arose between the class `bit_util` and the namespace `bit_util` and so I got rid of the class in favor of the namespace as that is more similar to how we handle `bit_util` elsewhere. ### Are these changes tested? Sort of. I would like to add an AVX2 CI system as well. I'm not confident any of the CI builds are building with AVX2 enabled. Also, even if we have an AVX2 CI system it would not have caught this issue since the code was only needed definitions from the acero header and was not relying on any actual compiled symbols. However, I think setting up tests to catch this sort of invalid include are beyond the scope of this PR. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. * Closes: apache#36641 Lead-authored-by: Weston Pace <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]>
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit fbf8a97. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. |
R-JunmingChen
pushed a commit
to R-JunmingChen/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2023
…pache#36650) ### Rationale for this change Files in modules which do not depend on the acero module should not reference files inside the acero module. ### What changes are included in this PR? There were no changes to the body of any functions. I simply moved functions around so that the acero include was no longer needed. There were some conflicts that arose between the class `bit_util` and the namespace `bit_util` and so I got rid of the class in favor of the namespace as that is more similar to how we handle `bit_util` elsewhere. ### Are these changes tested? Sort of. I would like to add an AVX2 CI system as well. I'm not confident any of the CI builds are building with AVX2 enabled. Also, even if we have an AVX2 CI system it would not have caught this issue since the code was only needed definitions from the acero header and was not relying on any actual compiled symbols. However, I think setting up tests to catch this sort of invalid include are beyond the scope of this PR. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. * Closes: apache#36641 Lead-authored-by: Weston Pace <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]>
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.
Rationale for this change
Files in modules which do not depend on the acero module should not reference files inside the acero module.
What changes are included in this PR?
There were no changes to the body of any functions. I simply moved functions around so that the acero include was no longer needed. There were some conflicts that arose between the class
bit_utiland the namespacebit_utiland so I got rid of the class in favor of the namespace as that is more similar to how we handlebit_utilelsewhere.Are these changes tested?
Sort of. I would like to add an AVX2 CI system as well. I'm not confident any of the CI builds are building with AVX2 enabled. Also, even if we have an AVX2 CI system it would not have caught this issue since the code was only needed definitions from the acero header and was not relying on any actual compiled symbols. However, I think setting up tests to catch this sort of invalid include are beyond the scope of this PR.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.