[petsc-dev] Issue with Lapack names

[Jose E. Roman]

> El 18 dic 2017, a las 18:58, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> 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?

No, the opposite. The routines are there, but since configure decided (wrongly) that they are missing, the check would fail at run time complaining that the routines are missing.

Jose

> 
>   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/