Skip to content
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

consider using cuda_wrap_srcs instead of cuda_add_library #75

Closed
cyrush opened this issue Aug 29, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

consider using cuda_wrap_srcs instead of cuda_add_library #75

cyrush opened this issue Aug 29, 2017 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@cyrush
Copy link
Member

cyrush commented Aug 29, 2017

cuda_wrap_srcs is more flexible than cuda_add_library.

Basically, we can use it to create an object lib for the nvcc compilation results, and then use that with the normal CMake add_library.

This is the approach we took in Strawman (https://github.com/llnl/strawman)
https://github.com/LLNL/strawman/blob/develop/src/strawman/CMakeLists.txt

It doesn't fix the overall issues with not being able to set specific properties for cuda targets after they are create, but it would help us create a clean solution to issues like #74 and #60

@davidbeckingsale what do you think?

@cyrush cyrush added the design label Aug 29, 2017
@DavidPoliakoff
Copy link
Contributor

@cyrush , is there a PR with this implemented? I'm having trouble compiling CUDA under BLT (#136), and would like to see if alternative implementations would work.

@cyrush
Copy link
Member Author

cyrush commented Mar 21, 2018

Not yet ...

@white238
Copy link
Member

white238 commented Aug 2, 2018

Closed due to removal of FindCUDA

@white238 white238 closed this as completed Aug 2, 2018
@davidbeckingsale
Copy link
Member

We technically still use FindCUDA to detect the location of the CUDA libraries. Do we know if CMake's native CUDA support works for object libraries?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants