[petsc-dev] [SPAM *****] Re: Issue with Lapack names

[Jose E. Roman]

> El 18 dic 2017, a las 19:24, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Ah. Why does the check fail? It does succeed for a number of them.

I don't know the exact reason, but it has to do with the names of real/complex subroutines. I guess the test is checking for dungqr, which does not exist - it should check for either dorgqr or zungqr.
Before that commit, there were only checks for "real" names, but after the commit there are a mix of real and complex subroutines.

Jose

> 
>   Thanks,
> 
>     Matt
>  
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/