[petsc-dev] Issue with Lapack names

[Matthew Knepley]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> wrote:

> I find the following definitions in petscconf.h, which are wrong because
> the corresponding subroutines are present.
>
> #define PETSC_MISSING_LAPACK_UNGQR 1
> #define PETSC_MISSING_LAPACK_HETRS 1
> #define PETSC_MISSING_LAPACK_HETRF 1
> #define PETSC_MISSING_LAPACK_HETRI 1
>
> This did not happen in 3.8, it is due to this change:
> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/b8695a4a8c7
>
> So now one cannot use PETSC_MISSING_LAPACK_UNGQR to protect a code that
> calls LAPACKungqr_
>
> This is related to a message I sent 2 years ago to petsc-maint
> "Inconsistent naming of one Lapack subroutine", where I advocated renaming
> LAPACKungqr_ --> LAPACKorgqr_. But that thread did not end up in any
> modification...


I can't find the thread. I also do not understand the problem. Are you
saying that the check succeeds but the routines is still missing?

  Thanks,

     Matt


>
> Jose

-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20171218/43bc27ae/attachment.html>