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

pythonPackages.numpy: consistent mklSupport attribute #74894

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

@bhipple
Copy link
Contributor

bhipple commented Dec 3, 2019

This commit makes numpy respect the mklSupport boolean attribute that is in
use in pytorch and other packages that have an MKL option.

While most packages that have this option depend on Numpy directly or
transitively, not all do; and it's more straightforward to have one config
option, since we generally want this to be applied consistently across our
library stack.

Note that this change as implemented should be backwards-compatible with the
previous numpy method for specifying MKL.

Motivation for this change
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
Notify maintainers

cc @FRidh @jonringer @alexarice @stites @markuskowa @smaret @costrouc @Ericson2314

This commit makes `numpy` respect the `mklSupport` boolean attribute that is in
use in `pytorch` and other packages that have an MKL option.

While most packages that have this option depend on Numpy directly or
transitively, not all do; and it's more straightforward to have one config
option, since we generally want this to be applied consistently across our
library stack.
@FRidh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Dec 3, 2019

Let's say another blas implementation pops up. Would we then add another flag to support it?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.