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

FTBFS with HDF5 1.10 due to a change of fileid type #73

Closed
ghisvail opened this issue Nov 1, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

FTBFS with HDF5 1.10 due to a change of fileid type #73

ghisvail opened this issue Nov 1, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@ghisvail
Copy link
Contributor

ghisvail commented Nov 1, 2016

Just forwarding an issue we had with compilation of ismrmrd on Debian following the transition of the archive to hdf5 v1.10.

Essentially, it all comes down to a change in the HDF5 API regarding the returned type of H5Fopen, which is no longer an int but a long long in v1.10. Actually, HDF5 encapsulates this return type to a hid_t, and the patch proposed by Gilles uses this type for ISMRMRD_Dataset.fileid which eventually fixes the problem.

Are you happy with this change? If so, I can forward Gilles' patch in a subsequent PR.

@hansenms
Copy link
Member

hansenms commented Nov 4, 2016

@ghisvail sorry for the slow response here. I also need to deal with the other PR you put up.

But yes, sounds like a reasonable change. Would that be backwards compatible with 1.8?

@ghisvail
Copy link
Contributor Author

ghisvail commented Nov 4, 2016

@ghisvail sorry for the slow response here. I also need to deal with the other PR you put up.

No problem.

Would that be backwards compatible with 1.8?

Gilles already pushed the change in the archive which still has 1.8 and the build and test suite ran fine. Since hid_t was 32-bit on HDF5 1.8, the change remains compatible with the old signature of ISMRMRD_Dataset.

@hansenms
Copy link
Member

hansenms commented Nov 4, 2016

Great, thanks! I will watch for the PR then.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants