Hi Alastair, On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > I'd be in favour of 64-bit computational stacks; some of the packages > (pnetcdf, etc) already don't work with 32-bit; It should make is > _possible_ to run on 32-bit, > > but accept that performance on 64-bit counts for our users. Taking a > perf hit on 32-bit archs to make 64-bit archs faster is reasonable; > > the question becomes - can 32-bit archs handle 64-bit code (int64 etc), > or are we dropping support for 32-bit archs ?
We didn't enable BLAS64/LAPACK64 on any 32-bit architecture, which means blas/lapack reverse depenencies cannot link against blas64/lapack64 on 32-bit archs. Personally I think it's pointless to get them working on 32-bit archs. That said, I'm open to this problem -- if someone can get blas64/lapack64 working on 32-bit archs, we may give it a shot. > > > > > -- > Alastair McKinstry, email: alast...@sceal.ie, matrix: @alastair:sceal.ie, > phone: 087-6847928 > Green Party Councillor, Galway County Council >
