Skip to content
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

ogre1.9: update for compatibility with Apple M1 Chip #1643

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

zarathustr
Copy link

The commit includes a full patch for successful compilation of ogre1.9 on the Apple M1 chip. THe main modifications are that in the SIMD instruction include headers of M1 Mac systems (macOS Big Sur and macOS Monterey), there are some incompatabilities with the ogre1.9 source files. The compiled state has been fully validated via the ROS RViz robotics visualization tool.

@osrf-jenkins
Copy link
Collaborator

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

1 similar comment
@osrf-jenkins
Copy link
Collaborator

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@scpeters
Copy link
Member

thanks for the submission; hopefully this will fix #1628

@scpeters scpeters changed the title Update ogre1.9.rb for Compatability with Apple M1 Chip ogre1.9: update for compatibility with Apple M1 Chip Oct 21, 2021
scpeters added a commit to scpeters/ogre that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2021
scpeters added a commit to scpeters/homebrew-simulation that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2021
Adapted from patch submitted by @zarathustr in
osrf#1643
@scpeters
Copy link
Member

There are currently a lot of patches on this formula, and it may be a bit unwieldy to work with them all, but I'd prefer to make smaller changes to this formula if possible. I analyzed the patch in your gist, and I believe I have captured the new material in scpeters/ogre@c39b6df and that this patch could be added to this formula in a more concise way as in scpeters@27fae88

To that end, I will open an alternative pull request with this more concise approach

@scpeters
Copy link
Member

There are currently a lot of patches on this formula, and it may be a bit unwieldy to work with them all, but I'd prefer to make smaller changes to this formula if possible. I analyzed the patch in your gist, and I believe I have captured the new material in scpeters/ogre@c39b6df and that this patch could be added to this formula in a more concise way as in scpeters@27fae88

To that end, I will open an alternative pull request with this more concise approach

I have a shorter form of the patch in #1646; do you mind testing it?

Thanks for fixing this!

scpeters added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2021
@scpeters
Copy link
Member

I've adapted your patch and merged #1646 instead

thanks for the contribution!

@scpeters scpeters closed this Oct 25, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants