-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
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
GH-34918: [C++] Update vendored double-conversion 3.2.1 #34919
Conversation
Thanks for opening a pull request! If this is not a minor PR. Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the Openness of the Apache Arrow project. Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?
or
In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports:
See also: |
|
Could you use pull request template content next time? |
cpp/src/arrow/CMakeLists.txt
Outdated
vendored/double-conversion/bignum.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/double-conversion.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/string-to-double.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/double-to-string.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/bignum-dtoa.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/fast-dtoa.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/cached-powers.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/fixed-dtoa.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/diy-fp.cc | ||
vendored/double-conversion/strtod.cc) |
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 you sort this list in alphabetical order?
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.
Hello, I have sorted alphabetically in the new commit
56bdf6f
to
edeec40
Compare
@anthonylouisbsb @projjal @praveenbingo You changed our vendored double-conversion in #9816. Is the change still needed? Some Gandiva tests failed by upgrading vendored double-conversion (the change is revered): https://ci.appveyor.com/project/ApacheSoftwareFoundation/arrow/builds/46724699#L2520
If you really need the change, could you improve double-conversion in upstream instead of changing vendored double-conversion. |
@liujiacheng777 As Kou says above, there were a few small changes made to the vendored double-conversion in #9816. See these changes at https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/9816/files#diff-d1cc5b70a5e980626bb70ae604a050d3393ac25a717a5a4c8dc40e8b5caf4b05 Could you please push a commit to this PR that ports these changes to the vendored double-conversion 3.2.1? As Kou says above, we would like to upstream these changes, but porting the changes here will help, and I think it will fix the failing CI. |
FYI: #35135 added an update script. We need to update the patches under https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/main/cpp/src/arrow/vendored/double-conversion/patches . FYI: https://lists.apache.org/thread/mzb2qj4vkwhtbc64d1yfloc4s3r2po7j is the mailing list discussion about upstreaming. |
`66% tests passed, 15 tests failed out of 44 Label Time Summary: Total Test time (real) = 980.08 sec The following tests FAILED: @kou ,I tested using “cmake .. -DARROW_BUILD_BENCHMARKS=ON && ctest -j8 --output-on-failure” according to the official manual, and there were 15 errors in the test results. The reason for the error is similar to the function not being registered(Key error: No function registered with name: greater). Do I need to turn on some test switches |
You may need to add |
edeec40
to
7526df9
Compare
@kou thanks, I turned on the DARROW_COMPUT and passed all the tests
I already integrated the two commits: #9816 && |
Thanks. If nobody reports our patches to upstream in this month, let's remove our patches and merge this. |
I opened a PR to upstream the double-conversion change at google/double-conversion#195 |
@ursabot please benchmark |
Benchmark runs are scheduled for baseline = 9ef2f65 and contender = ed9907e. Results will be available as each benchmark for each run completes. |
['Python', 'R'] benchmarks have high level of regressions. |
Yes. But could you check the benchmark result before we merge this?
It says that the tpch benchmarks were slow with this change. (Should we re-run benchmark?) |
@ursabot please benchmark |
Commit ed9907e already has scheduled benchmark runs. |
@ursabot please benchmark |
Commit ed9907e already has scheduled benchmark runs. |
@ursabot please benchmark lang=R |
Commit ed9907e already has scheduled benchmark runs. |
It looks like we will have to wait for a while to re-run the benchmarks. It seems hard to tell whether the performance regressions are just noise. |
It seems that we can't run our benchmarks multiple times for one commit. @liujiacheng777 Could you rebase on main to re-run our benchmarks? (Rebasing changes a commit ID.) |
@kou I am more confident now that these performance regressions are just noise. The biggest regressions are happening in 0.1 and 0.01 scale factor TPC-H benchmarks (which are known to be very noisy) and the other scale factors of the same benchmarks are not showing regressions. |
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.
+1
OK. I merge this.
Benchmark runs are scheduled for baseline = a4bcee3 and contender = 00e6996. 00e6996 is a master commit associated with this PR. Results will be available as each benchmark for each run completes. |
Modifications based on doubleConversion version 3.2.1