liquid-dsp 1.2.0 (new formula) #2664
Conversation
|
Yup, already saw that, but it seems to be a weird inline assembler (?) related error and I'm curious why this only only happens on Mavericks. I guess this could be a compiler issue... |
|
Could you report it to the developers? Thanks! |
The test build on OS X Mavericks failed with errors like "no such instruction: `vmovss LC1(%rip), %xmm2'" which might relate to AVX intrinsics - at least that's what I've found in a similar issue: OP2/PyOP2#471 The suggested fix is to add the compiler flag "-Wa,-q" which this commit tries to do.
|
@BrewTestBot Please test this again. |
|
@muellermartin Why did you close/reopen this? |
|
@MikeMcQuaid Sorry, I accidentally clicked the wrong button :( |
|
I just wanted to note that I found a similar issue with OP2/PyOP2#471 which points out that this could be related to AVX instructions. With the last commit I want to check if the build error on Mavericks can be resolved with the suggested fix (adding |
|
Build looks good, no errors - even on Mavericks. I'll report that issue upstream. Until then this package could be used. Update: This issue is now reported upstream: jgaeddert/liquid-dsp#48 |
| depends_on "fftw" => :recommended | ||
| # libfec could be an optional dependency, but it's not available, yet | ||
|
|
||
| fails_with :clang do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We've been extremely 👎 on accepting new formulae which won't build against Clang, particularly if there's no upstream work in progress on making it Clang compatible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's understandable. Maybe I can get it to work under LLVM/Clang by fiddling around...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've found a way to successfully build it with LLVM/Clang instead of GCC with a simple patch which already has an upstream issue (see jgaeddert/liquid-dsp#50). Should I submit another pull request or add it here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Submitting a PR & then using that PR in patch do format if it applies cleanly here would be terrific.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've already submitted a patch upstream (jgaeddert/liquid-dsp#51) Do I understand it correctly that I can add it here in this PR? Is an embedded patch (patch :DATA + __END__) O.K.?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it will apply cleanly, we'd prefer the:
patch do
url "https://github.com/jgaeddert/liquid-dsp/pull/51.patch"
sha256 ""
endFormat.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, didn't know you also can get a "raw" patch file out of a PR hosted on GitHub. Neat and thanks for this tip!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added commit with patch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aye, you can get diffs if preferred by simply switching it to diff as well. Very handy feature.
| def install | ||
| system "./reconf" | ||
| system "./configure", "--prefix=#{prefix}" | ||
| # Note: "make install" in one step does fail |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you report this issue upstream? Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll do that and report back as soon as it's done!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've now reported this upstream as jgaeddert/liquid-dsp#53 and included a simple PR. Should I add a "patch" with inreplace in the formula to change the relevant file in the Makefile (makefile.in) or just add/replace the comment to mention the upstream bug?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just add the comment, thanks 👍
|
I've now added a comment on another upstream issue as suggested. The reported upstream issues (jgaeddert/liquid-dsp#48 and jgaeddert/liquid-dsp#52) do have patches/workarounds until they get resolved and released which seems to take time due to stalling maintenance, but I've heard that this is beeing worked on. |
|
I might wait another day or two for upstream to reply to your tickets (thanks for filing them!) |
|
Closing until we get a new stable release with these patches included. |
brew install <formula>(where<formula>is the name of the formula you're submitting)?brew audit --strict --online <formula>(after doingbrew install <formula>)?