On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jose E. Roman <jro...@dsic.upv.es> wrote:
> > El 18 dic 2017, a las 18:58, Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> > escribió: > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jose E. Roman <jro...@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. 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/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>