Skip to content

[ENH]: Use Driver version to target compatible .so/.dll versions #654

Description

@rwgk

This will make a difference in environments with a heterogenous mix of installed CTK libraries.

Closely related discussions: #839

Activity

  1. added
    enhancementAny code-related improvements
    P0High priority - Must do!
    cuda.bindingsEverything related to the cuda.bindings module
    on May 22, 2025
  2. changed the title [-]path_finder enhancement: Use Driver version to target compatible .so/.dll versions[/-] [+]pathfinder enhancement: Use Driver version to target compatible .so/.dll versions[/+] on Aug 19, 2025
  3. changed the title [-]pathfinder enhancement: Use Driver version to target compatible .so/.dll versions[/-] [+][ENH]: Use Driver version to target compatible .so/.dll versions[/+] on Mar 4, 2026
  4. added
    P2Low priority - Nice to have
    and removed
    P0High priority - Must do!
    on Mar 4, 2026
  5. rwgk commented on Mar 4, 2026

    @rwgk
    ContributorAuthor

    I'm revamping the prioritization for all pathfinder issues.

  6. removed
    P2Low priority - Nice to have
    on Mar 4, 2026
  7. leofang commented on Mar 12, 2026

    @leofang
    Member

    We have a 2-fold problem here:

    1. For CUDA libraries that are shipped with CTK:
      • Using the driver version to constrain the search is enough
    2. For CUDA libraries that are shipped outside of CTK (I call them satellite libraries):
      • We need a constraint either provided by the user or auto-detection, to express that "I want to load the cuTENSOR build for CUDA 12 not CUDA 13"
      • We also need to prepare for satellite libraries that have released multiple major versions. cuTENSOR is also one such example (the 1.x -> 2.x transition was a bit painful) and I don't think the pathfinder is equipped to address this today.
  8. added
    P0High priority - Must do!
    and removed
    cuda.bindingsEverything related to the cuda.bindings module
    on Mar 12, 2026
  9. rwgk commented on Mar 17, 2026

    @rwgk
    ContributorAuthor

    This is probably best handled under #1038

  10. rwgk commented on Mar 24, 2026

    @rwgk
    ContributorAuthor

    Similar to #1732, I'm removing the P0 label here for my bookkeeping: I want to look at this again after resolving #1038, which is more holistic than this issue.

  11. removed
    P0High priority - Must do!
    on Mar 24, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    cuda.pathfinderEverything related to the cuda.pathfinder moduleenhancementAny code-related improvements

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    • Status
      Todo

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions