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

[Jose E. Roman]

> El 18 dic 2017, a las 22:34, Karl Rupp <rupp at iue.tuwien.ac.at> escribió:
> 
> 
> 
>>     > > 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?
> 
> works for me, yes.
> If possible, I'd like to preserve the auto-generated nature of this list. If 'dungqr' is the only exception, then please adjust the list of tests accordingly *and* add a comment to BlasLapack.py saying why 'dungqr' is special.
> 
> Best regards,
> Karli
> 

I have created a pull request for this.
https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/826/fix-test-for-missing-lapack-subroutines/diff
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/
>>    <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/
>>    <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/>