Re: [Kaldi-users] Kaldi compiles now under VS 2013

[Kirill K. <kir...@sm...>]

I thought it was but this really appears to be a grey area in the standard. But indeed, from the practical standpoint, I think the best thing to do is just make all compilers happy. I can figure out if this is really undefined C++ later, if there is a theoretical interest. 

 -kkm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Povey [mailto:dp...@gm...]
> Sent: 2015-05-11 1444
> To: Jan Trmal
> Cc: Kirill Katsnelson; kal...@li...; kaldi-
> dev...@li...; 洪孝宗
> Subject: Re: [Kaldi-users] Kaldi compiles now under VS 2013
> 
> OK fine.
> I'm pretty sure this is a bug in MSVC, that the namespace lookup for a
> templated function happens in the context in which the template is
> evaluated (as opposed to where it was defined).  But it makes sense to
> patch it anyway.
> Dan
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jan Trmal <jt...@gm...> wrote:
> > Ok, I will have a.look tmrw. I think I've resolved the types issue
> > (last one you mentioned). I generated the patch for openfst, that
> > defines the int types within the openfst namespace - originally they
> > exist on.the highest scope (i.e. ::int32) The patch has something
> like
> > namespace fst {
> >   typedef int32 ::int32;
> > }
> >
> > Doping this, the lookup works fine even under the ms c++.
> > To me, this is optimal solution as we have to patch the openfst
> anyway
> > (and my change wont break any code).
> > You can.have a look ať the openfstwin-1.3.3.patch in tools/extras.
> > I am open to any suggestion or general discussion on how this should
> > be made better.
> > Y.
> >
> > On May 11, 2015 9:03 PM, "Daniel Povey" <dp...@gm...> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, the build was not "painless" at all. In fact, the perl
> script
> >> > generated a solution with 600+ projects that simply failed to
> >> > build. VS was churning out dependencies on these, and crashed in
> >> > about 10 minutes of just sitting there with a 100% CPU use. Not a
> >> > single file was compiled, so I think it was just autogenerating
> dependencies at this point.
> >>
> >> Build systems on Windows are pretty broken.  I think in Microsoft
> >> they use some other system, not the one used in VS, which is not
> >> publicly released.
> >>
> >> > I did not try to build from the command line though. Am I
> >> > understanding it would compile?
> >>
> >> No, not everything would compile.  Sometimes the VS compiler just
> crashes.
> >>
> >> > What I did not like about the existing system is that I could not
> >> > plug in CUDA or intel compiler. It is extremely rigid in the
> option
> >> > part, and to change compiler options you are most likely to change
> >> > the perl code that generates the project files, or modify the
> >> > different MSBuild include files (called "property sheets" in this
> >> > context) that are interplaying quite non-trivially. No, I have
> >> > spent a few days on the build system not for a love of tinkering
> >> > with MSBuils at all! :)
> >>
> >> What we committed was just a hack to try to get something working.
> >> IIRC we just looked at the build files generated by VS to try to
> >> guess what the format of those files was supposed to be; I'm not
> sure
> >> that they are really intended to be human readable/writable (unless
> >> that human really loves XML).
> >>
> >> > Anyway, you can look at it at
> >> > https://github.com/kkm000/kaldi/tree/winbuild/msbuild. (NB I have
> >> > not updated the branch in a while) If you think this is not an
> >> > acceptable solution, I'm just dropping the ball, no offence taken,
> >> > naturally. I can maintain this as an "unofficial port" for a
> while.
> >> > In any case, build is the least problem, as Dan has pointed out
> already...
> >> >
> >> > The biggest (in the number of changed lines) changes I had to make
> >> > were in the namespace using declarations, because of conflicts
> >> > between the types
> >> > int32 and friends from different namespaces. I ended up reading
> the
> >> > C++ standard to understand whether gcc, icl or msvc is "correct"
> in
> >> > different cases they are complaining about, and the standard
> >> > appears not to define any behavior there. These changes I would
> >> > prefer accepted into the mainline of development, because they are
> harder to maintain in a fork.
> >>
> >> In any case where you have to do something like typedef kaldi::int32
> >> int32, we should definitely get this committed- talk to Yenda.
> >> Actually, this is really a bug in OpenFST which they haven't fixed
> >> yet.  There is a "proper" POSIX way to get types like int32, which
> we
> >> use in Kaldi, but in OpenFst they do it in a different, ad-hoc way
> >> which sometimes generates different types (e.g. on a system where
> int
> >> and long int are both 32-bit).  So the Kaldi int32 and the OpenFst
> >> int32 end up being different, incompatible types.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Jan Trmal [mailto:jt...@gm...]
> >> >> Sent: 2015-05-11 0201
> >> >> To: Dan Povey
> >> >> Cc: Kirill Katsnelson; kal...@li...;
> >> >> kaldi- us...@li...; 洪孝宗
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Kaldi-users] Kaldi compiles now under VS 2013
> >> >>
> >> >> Guys, the migration to git is "unofficially" done -- unless we
> >> >> find some problems with it, the repo (https://github.com/kaldi-
> >> >> asr/kaldi.git) will stay as it is now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kirill,  there is no reason why wait. We should start working on
> it.
> >> >> I propose you could first send the Kaldi code patches -- I
> >> >> actually worked on this and I'm able to compile Kaldi, so this
> >> >> should be quite straightforward, provided you will generate the
> diff against the HEAD.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then we can start looking at the  "build system". I understand
> >> >> your reasons and I think they might be legit. My feeling is,
> >> >> however, that a lot of people are not using MSBuild and will
> >> >> expect the MSVC solution, just because this is how they usually
> >> >> work. I haven't tested it, but you should be able to use the
> >> >> current SLN to build the binaries from command line -- that
> should
> >> >> be completely painless -- but again, I haven't tested it.
> >> >> y.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Daniel Povey <dp...@gm...>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>       >> To the extent that your patches are simple fixes and
> >> >> minor changes to
> >> >>       >> the code, I think we could apply them.  Perhaps you
> could
> >> >> work with
> >> >>       >> Yenda to get your changes checked?
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       > Easy enough, and as easy to hold till the migration is
> done.
> >> >> Was there a change in the plans?
> >> >>
> >> >>       Not really a change in the plans, but we don't have a
> definite
> >> >>       timeline for migrating to git, and it could be that we'll
> >> >> keep the svn
> >> >>       as upstream for a while.  Your changes seem reasonable, but
> >> >> I think it
> >> >>       would be better to get things started now rather than
> later.
> >> >> The
> >> >>       git/svn issues should not be that hard.  Just start sending
> >> >> patches to
> >> >>       Yenda and we'll handle your changes bit by bit.
> >> >>       Dan
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       >> If you update your git repo to
> >> >>       >> point to the current code, then a patch should be
> >> >> applicable by the
> >> >>       >> program "patch" to the svn repo too.
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       > There are many changes, and I certainly want to split the
> >> >> patch so it is readable. One megapatch is not reviewable.
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       >> Regarding your build approach, you could send me and
> >> >> Yenda some details
> >> >>       >> about how you did it, and we could consider whether to
> >> >> support that.
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       > There's a Powershell script that takes information from
> >> >> every src/*/Makefile into a simple declarative MSBuild script
> >> >> $dirname.kwproj, and a top-level MSBuild "makefile" that drives
> >> >> the whole thing. A little bit more complex than that to allow for
> >> >> user- defined options, but generally this is it. This supports
> >> >> building libraries, tools, tests and running the tests with
> >> >> command line switches. The whole thing pretty much mimics a linux
> >> >> make process but using MS tools.
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       >> I don't think it makes sense to try to maintain a
> >> >> parallel
> >> >> "windows-
> >> >>       >> compatible" version of the scripts, if there are larger
> >> >> changes
> >> >>       >> required there.
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       > I was targeting for no changes at all. There maybe a few
> >> >> very small patches that supposed not to break compatibility.
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       >> Anyway you depend on cygwin for scripting, and the set
> >> >>       >> of people who want to run cygwin and build with MSVC is
> >> >> probably
> >> >>       >> limited enough that I don't think it makes sense for us
> >> >> to try to
> >> >>       >> support it.
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       > This is not as simple a choice as it seems at first. Alex
> >> >> Hung just posted a trick to build CUDA under Cygwin; before he
> did
> >> >> I thought it was not possible. MKL is another story. I would
> >> >> rather build under native Windows than try to pull this monster
> >> >> into the Cygwin build environment.
> >> >>       >
> >> >>       >  -kkm
> >> >>       >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >