Skip to content

Revert SimpleITK to previous known working hash #7810

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
blowekamp wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Revert SimpleITK to previous known working hash #7810

blowekamp wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@blowekamp
Copy link
Contributor

@blowekamp blowekamp commented Jun 20, 2024

The update to ITK and SimpleITK is causing an unknown loading issue on windows.

This successfully compile on a Ubutu 20.04 linux system.

@blowekamp
Revert SimpleITK to previous know working hash
2bd9065 
The update to ITK and SimpleITK is causing an unknown loading issue on
windows.
@blowekamp blowekamp changed the title Revert SimpleITK to previous know working hash Revert SimpleITK to previous known working hash Jun 20, 2024
@blowekamp
Copy link
Contributor Author

blowekamp commented Jun 20, 2024

@dzenanz @jcfr

@dzenanz dzenanz requested review from jamesobutler and jcfr June 20, 2024 13:41
@jcfr
Copy link
Member

jcfr commented Jun 20, 2024

I am now looking into the root cause, I will follow-up later today with either a fix or integration of this pull request.

@blowekamp
Copy link
Contributor Author

blowekamp commented Jun 20, 2024

@jcfr I also have some changes to the SWIG files to accommodate the "slicer_itk" namespace. I didn't think it's related to the issue.

@jamesobutler
Copy link
Contributor

jamesobutler commented Jun 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@blowekamp Does SimpleITK need newer SWIG (4.2.1) and PCRE (10.40) versions for certain build configurations? I see SimpleITK repo uses these newer versions. I didn't have any problem with latest SimpleITK when I built Slicer locally on Windows (see here) which includes these older versions of dependencies, but maybe some configuration doesn't do well with the older dependencies. Only the Slicer factory Windows build machine had problems.

Slicer/SuperBuild/External_Swig.cmake

Lines 15 to 17 in 84b4b10

set(SWIG_TARGET_VERSION 4.0.2)
set(SWIG_DOWNLOAD_SOURCE_HASH "05e7da70ce6d9a733b96c0bcfa3c1b82765bd859f48c74759bbf4bb1467acb1809caa310cba5e2b3280cd704fca249eaa0624821dffae1d2a75097c7f55d14ed")
set(SWIG_DOWNLOAD_WIN_HASH "b8f105f9b9db6acc1f6e3741990915b533cd1bc206eb9645fd6836457fd30789b7229d2e3219d8e35f2390605ade0fbca493ae162ec3b4bc4e428b57155db03d")

Slicer/SuperBuild/External_PCRE.cmake

Lines 50 to 55 in 84b4b10

set(_version "8.44")
ExternalProject_add(PCRE
${${proj}_EP_ARGS}
URL https://github.com/Slicer/SlicerBinaryDependencies/releases/download/PCRE/pcre-${_version}.tar.gz
URL_HASH SHA512=abac4c4f9df9e61d7d7761a9c50843882611752e1df0842a54318f358c28f5953025eba2d78997d21ee690756b56cc9f1c04a5ed591dd60654cc78ba16d9ecfb

@blowekamp
Copy link
Contributor Author

blowekamp commented Jun 20, 2024

I don't think that we have testing anyplace with older non-SimpleITK Superbuild version of SWIG... maybe we have/had a build with a system version of SWIG. It would certainly be good to updated.

I have never seen any sensitivity to the version of PCRE.

@jcfr jcfr mentioned this pull request Jun 20, 2024
Merged
@jcfr jcfr closed this Jun 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jamesobutler jamesobutler Awaiting requested review from jamesobutler

@jcfr jcfr Awaiting requested review from jcfr

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blowekamp @jcfr @jamesobutler