-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 121
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
Build universal native libraries on macOS [2 XMR] #843
Comments
There is a bounty on this issue, the amount is in the title. The reward will be awarded to the first person or group of people who resolves this issue. If you are starting to work on this bounty, please write a comment, so that we can assign the issue to you. We expect contributors to provide a PR in a reasonable time frame or, in case of an extensive work, updates on their progresses. We will unassign the issue if we feel the assignee is not responsive or has abandoned the task. Read the full conditions and details of our bounty system. |
I’ll look into this |
Excellent, happy to have your help. Thanks. |
I'm curious; is the goal to avoid multiple builds or to have a universal native library on Mac? |
Universal native library for macOS x86_64 and ARM64. |
What if the universal native library is generated from already built x86_64 and ARM64 libraries? Then that involves multiple builds. That is why I ask. |
That could be one way to do it, but I was expecting to use cmake configuration and toolchains like monero-project, to avoid multiple builds and be able to do it from one machine: https://github.com/monero-project/monero/tree/master/cmake |
For clarity; is it allowed to use the platform libraries to generate this
universal library?
…On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 3:45 AM woodser ***@***.***> wrote:
Universal native library for macOS x86_64 and ARM64.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#843 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2MWRYLTIRJRT54RPG3YNDY3ILWPAVCNFSM6AAAAABFJMPZMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMZQHE3TIOJUGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
I think 2 builds to generate the 2 architecture libraries might still be
necessary. And then the final step will be to combine both into the
universal library.
…On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1:12 PM Oyeniyi Dada ***@***.***> wrote:
For clarity; is it allowed to use the platform libraries to generate this
universal library?
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 3:45 AM woodser ***@***.***> wrote:
> Universal native library for macOS x86_64 and ARM64.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#843 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2MWRYLTIRJRT54RPG3YNDY3ILWPAVCNFSM6AAAAABFJMPZMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMZQHE3TIOJUGQ>
> .
> You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
|
I'm reading that multiple flags can be passed to the build command, e.g. But I haven't looked into it deeply. |
Are you already using set(CMAKE_OSX_ARCHITECTURES "x86_64;arm64")?
…On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1:49 PM woodser ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm reading that multiple flags can be passed to the build command, e.g. CXXFLAGS="-arch
x86_64 -arch arm64 -mmacosx-version-min=11.0 -std=c++11"
But I haven't looked into it deeply.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#843 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2MWR5TG55OBPQ6T7A46BLY3KSNXAVCNFSM6AAAAABFJMPZMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMZRHE2TOMZRGU>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Nope, but sounds worth trying. |
I believe set(CMAKE_OSX_ARCHITECTURES "x86_64;arm64") should be used;
followed by lipo to combine the 2 arch libraries into a universal library.
…On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 2:01 PM Oyeniyi Dada ***@***.***> wrote:
Are you already using set(CMAKE_OSX_ARCHITECTURES "x86_64;arm64")?
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1:49 PM woodser ***@***.***> wrote:
> I'm reading that multiple flags can be passed to the build command, e.g. CXXFLAGS="-arch
> x86_64 -arch arm64 -mmacosx-version-min=11.0 -std=c++11"
>
> But I haven't looked into it deeply.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#843 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2MWR5TG55OBPQ6T7A46BLY3KSNXAVCNFSM6AAAAABFJMPZMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMZRHE2TOMZRGU>
> .
> You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
|
Any progress on this? I will be taking a look.
…On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 2:05 PM Oyeniyi Dada ***@***.***> wrote:
I believe set(CMAKE_OSX_ARCHITECTURES "x86_64;arm64") should be used;
followed by lipo to combine the 2 arch libraries into a universal library.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 2:01 PM Oyeniyi Dada ***@***.***> wrote:
> Are you already using set(CMAKE_OSX_ARCHITECTURES "x86_64;arm64")?
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1:49 PM woodser ***@***.***> wrote:
>
>> I'm reading that multiple flags can be passed to the build command, e.g. CXXFLAGS="-arch
>> x86_64 -arch arm64 -mmacosx-version-min=11.0 -std=c++11"
>>
>> But I haven't looked into it deeply.
>>
>> —
>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> <#843 (comment)>,
>> or unsubscribe
>> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2MWR5TG55OBPQ6T7A46BLY3KSNXAVCNFSM6AAAAABFJMPZMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMZRHE2TOMZRGU>
>> .
>> You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
>> ***@***.***>
>>
>
|
|
...and you added the lipo command? I have not tested this yet (no Mac):
|
I can test this for you, I have an M2 mac and I can emulate an x86-64 one using UTM |
The main issue (sorry, I kinda dropped the ball on this issue, was working on other things) was/is getting monero to properly static compile for both x86_64 and arm64 on the same system. I was able to get that far in GitHub workflows, but I am still unable to properly test if lipo will create a proper universal binary (especially the cctools Linux port, which seems to hate GitHub workflows with a burning passion) the most recent workflow run I did is here; if you could run lipo on the artifacts and see if it works properly, that would be highly appreciated. It should, but honestly it wouldn’t shock me at this point if it found a way to mess things up |
Heyo! Good news!! after running The binaries themselves work in practice so you may be able to just run the above command in the final linker step? Proof it works too ^^: |
@ all, thank you all for your contribution and proving the idea works. |
If there's anyway I can help further I'm more than happy too ^^ I'll see if I can take a look at the GitHub workflows tomorrow if you'd like @preland unless it's not going to be used in the final build? |
That would be appreciated; once that is working properly, then the path to getting this issue resolved will be as “simple” as monero->monero-cpp->monero-java->haveno |
It seems the issue is that the build-universal-macos-app action requires that the artifacts be pushed to a release first before it can create them. The problem with this is Monero uses gitian for releases which includes signings, hashes etc. This means the fatbinary action needs gitian to be done first before it itself can be pushed into that release, making a chicken or the egg problem. The two ideas that come to mind at the moment is either: A)Haveno bundles the fat binaries itself, using the github action your using to pull moneros official down and merge them. B)We hand roll a custom lipo maker thats able to use the previous artifacts somehow, possible a bash snippet post macos build in a macos env or creating a custom program and dockerizing it. With my limited knowledge I'd want to say option A may be better but if we can just pull an artifact and put it into amalgam on the monero upstream then option B would be the best case. I'll take a look into option B after the 18th since I have exams over the next few weeks making me unable to work on things. |
Thanks for looking into it :) Part of the issue is that, with the current dependency chain, the best solution would be to create the brand new lipo target within the main monero repo, and then have the dependency get fixed that way. In terms of getting that done: we can figure out how to get the action working, and then wait for the PR to get merged; in the meantime we would just directly use the PR commit for monero-cpp I noticed that there was a single pre-existing GitHub workflow that would use lipo to create a universal binary, but it wasn’t working when I tried it out. Maybe we could make a custom one? Tbh if it has to rely on a MacOS runner that shouldn’t be too much of a concern at this point (since the lipo step isn’t really in scope for Monero static builds, as it is rly little more than packaging. At most we may need to add some extra information in build documentation) |
Ignore my previous comment; it is wrong. Looking into it deeply, the easiest way to do this is to build the entire libraries for both x86 and Arm separately, then combine using lipo. I currently have PRs open in monero-cpp and monero-java that do just that. I can confirm that it works on a Debian 12 system. I have yet to test it on a macOS host (Windows won't work out of the box currently as I didn't update portions of the toolchain to allow for it to be used). My only concern currently is whether or not the built artifact in monero-java will currently be accessible via jitpack.io (ie what we use to access gradle/maven/whatever artifacts from repositories). If that concern is addressed, then this will be a fully functioning universal macOS build pipeline (that can be compiled statically on other platforms). One current pitfall is that the bash scripts will build the entire project from scratch. I can start looking into other changes once necessary. |
Haveno can use native libraries instead of monero-wallet-rpc for wallet functionality using the monero-java project.
Currently, the native libraries built for macOS are platform-dependent, so they must be built for x86_64 and ARM64.
This issue requests making the native libraries universal on macOS, so multiple builds are not necessary.
This issue shares a bounty with the related issue: woodser/monero-java#81
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: