-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
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
Move tools to use LKG ILC #107772
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Move tools to use LKG ILC #107772
Conversation
Starts with crossgen2 and moves shared helpers into a central targets file.
Are we going to build the non-NativeAOT crossgen2 (the singlefilehost version) against the LKG bits? If so, could we instead just update/use the crossgen2.csproj project and have 2 projects instead of continuing to have the 3 separate projects? |
By that you mean, are we going to pull the single-file host from the LKG as well? I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. |
Yep that's what I was thinking of. I think however we ship crossgen2, we should ship it on equivalent runtime bits. The alternative would likely be more expensive in infra maintenence for minimal gain, unless it's required by source-build or something. |
@@ -1,14 +1,7 @@ | |||
<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk"> | |||
<PropertyGroup> | |||
<CrossHostArch Condition="'$(CrossBuild)' == 'true' or '$(TargetArchitecture)' != '$(BuildArchitecture)' or '$(HostOS)' != '$(TargetOS)' or '$(EnableNativeSanitizers)' != ''">$(BuildArchitecture)</CrossHostArch> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For ilc, this is set unconditionally in the crossarch project
<OutputPath>$(RuntimeBinDir)/$(CrossHostArch)/ilc/</OutputPath> |
Also, we should make the crossgen and ilc project files use the same naming scheme. I like the naming scheme for ilc project files (ILCompiler.csproj, ILCompiler_crossarch.csproj).
I've been experimenting locally, and I don't think we should get rid of the publish project either. The problem is that the SDK is architected such that I can't think of a way to do that without a different project if we also want things to use the non-published copy. If I set |
ilc has two projects (native and cross-arch). It does not have any special handling of publishing. Can crossgen be on the same plan? |
I think ILC is the incorrect one here -- while not setting Thus far ILC has not depended on any of those behaviors, but I think that's accidental. |
Maybe I am missing the bigger picture. Coverage-wise, both approaches are eventually testing what is being shipped:
Live build is better IMO, and it gives us control over enabling nativeaot for new platforms without waiting for the entire update cycle, runtime->sdk->runtime (which takes a month or two). End to end tests in dotnet/sdk repo are covering the nuget feed scenario. |
But it's also testing every version, as you're developing it on a local machine and in CI. So in addition to the complexity in the build system needed to produce the right phase ordering, you also make local development and CI uniquely unstable by changing Native AOT. Add to all of this, debug builds become unusably slow because the debug JIT is incredibly slow. Optimizing for live builds is optimizing for release validation, while using LKG builds is optimizing for infra simplicity and developer experience. |
Yup, @jkotas explained it to me about the release vs. debug performance penalty and I agree that live build (for non-testing) should be on release plan. BTW, are you looking to incorporrate the scenario #105004 is covering? I can close that one. Basically it's this workflow https://github.com/am11/CrossRepoCITesting/actions/runs/10847119420/workflow (also covered in runtime CI, see eng/pipelines changes in the PR). |
In theory, yes. In practice, there isn't an LKG apphost for FreeBSD right? I haven't thought of what we should do in that case. Perhaps the answer is "require an LKG apphost just like we require an LKG runtime" |
I think we should introduce a new build option that builds everything that comes from LKG (including LKG apphost if necessary) and require invoking build with that option before invoking regular build if there is no LKG available for the target platform. #105004 (comment) has details. Introducing this build option should be a separate PR from this one. |
Yes, it's about the |
Starts with crossgen2 and moves shared helpers into a central targets file.