Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching (Re-designed)

2019-06-17 Thread Mo Zhou
Hi Michał, Sorry for the late reply. Just encountered some severe hardware failure. On 2019-06-13 07:49, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> sci-libs/{blas,cblas,lapack,lapacke}::gentoo should be deprecated. They >> are based on exactly the same source tarball, and maintaining 4 ebuild >> files for a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching (Re-designed)

2019-06-13 Thread Michał Górny
On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 00:15 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote: > Hi Gentoo devs, > > I redesigned the solution for BLAS/LAPACK runtime switching. > New solution is based on eselect+ld.so.conf . See following. > > > Goal > > > > > > * When a program is linked against libblas.so or liblapack.so > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching (Re-designed)

2019-06-13 Thread Mo Zhou
Hi Gentoo devs, I redesigned the solution for BLAS/LAPACK runtime switching. New solution is based on eselect+ld.so.conf . See following. > Goal > > > * When a program is linked against libblas.so or liblapack.so > provided by any BLAS/LAPACK provider, the eselect-based solution >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching

2019-05-29 Thread Benda Xu
Hi David, David Seifert writes: >> > An actual ABI compliance test, e.g. done using abi-compliance- >> > checker would be more interesting. >> >> As said above, the symbols don't need to be 1-1 copy of each other. >> Any library which is a superset of the reference one will work. > > Again,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching

2019-05-29 Thread David Seifert
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 22:33 +0800, Benda Xu wrote: > Hi Michał, > > Michał Górny writes: > > > On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 01:37 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote: > > > Different BLAS/LAPACK implementations are expected to be > > > compatible > > > to each other in both the API and ABI level. They can be used as

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching

2019-05-29 Thread Benda Xu
Hi Michał, Michał Górny writes: > On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 01:37 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote: >> Different BLAS/LAPACK implementations are expected to be compatible >> to each other in both the API and ABI level. They can be used as >> drop-in replacement to the others. This sounds nice, but the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching

2019-05-29 Thread Benda Xu
Dear David, David Seifert writes: > We already have such a solution in the sci-overlay. It has proven > extremely brittle and shaky. What's more, using eselect set which library to link to was regarded harmful. > The plan is to do this via USE flags similar to python-single-r1 > flags. Yes,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching

2019-05-29 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 01:37 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote: > Different BLAS/LAPACK implementations are expected to be compatible > to each other in both the API and ABI level. They can be used as > drop-in replacement to the others. This sounds nice, but the difference > in SONAME hampered the gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching

2019-05-28 Thread David Seifert
On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 01:37 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote: > Hi Gentoo devs, > > Classical numerical linear algebra libraries, BLAS[1] and LAPACK[2] > play important roles in the scientific computing field, as many > software such as Numpy, Scipy, Julia, Octave, R are built upon them. > > There is a

[gentoo-dev] RFC: BLAS and LAPACK runtime switching

2019-05-28 Thread Mo Zhou
Hi Gentoo devs, Classical numerical linear algebra libraries, BLAS[1] and LAPACK[2] play important roles in the scientific computing field, as many software such as Numpy, Scipy, Julia, Octave, R are built upon them. There is a standard implementation of BLAS and LAPACK, named netlib or simply