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

[Matthew Knepley]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> wrote:

> > 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.
>

Now I really want to punch one of the LAPACK guys in the face. Which one...

Karl, I think it is enough right now to change the complex names, like
ungqr to orgqr as Jose suggests. Will this work for you?

  Thanks,

     Matt


> 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/
>
>


-- 
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/efcd7d10/attachment.html>