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

Zeus includes an incompatible version of gcc for fftw #396

Open
bmagistro opened this issue Dec 6, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Zeus includes an incompatible version of gcc for fftw #396

bmagistro opened this issue Dec 6, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
bug Support Issue Tracking Tracking issue on internal bug repo

Comments

@bmagistro
Copy link

Opening an issue here for tracking/linking purposes. The initial discussion occurred on the mailing list (http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/2020-December/063312.html).

Short version, when fftw is compiled against gcc 9.x and NEON is enabled, fftw may segfault. Another user opened an issue with the fftw project (FFTW/fftw3#213). A possible solution would be to add gcc-8.x as a devtools recipe that could be used to override the default compiler shipped in Zeus (and likely Dunfell). There is an open request with the yocto project to have them revert a recent commit and continue including gcc 8.x due to this issue.

Believe the issue better resides in meta-ettus but don't see a way to add issues there.

cc: @michaelld @balister

@michaelld michaelld added bug Support Issue Tracking Tracking issue on internal bug repo labels Dec 7, 2020
@michaelld
Copy link
Collaborator

@bmagistro thanks for creating this public UHD issue. I've tagged it in our private / internal issues as you can see. I've also marked is as "escalated" since I think it's critical to get it fixed. We'll see what others think.

@balister
Copy link
Contributor

Any updates?

@njpillitteri
Copy link

njpillitteri commented Jun 2, 2021

I still have this issue with Yocto Gatesgarth and GCC 10.2 on a Zynq-7000

I saw here some Debian people saying it was solved as a toolchain problem (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=943396) but I still have the issue.

@andrepuschmann
Copy link
Contributor

Hey,
we are just in the progress of updating an E310 that was still running UHD 3.9.2 to a more recent version I found the same with UHD 4.0. Is there a solution yet? Is 4.1 any better? If not, what's the last known working version?

Thanks
Andre

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Support Issue Tracking Tracking issue on internal bug repo
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants