I was working through instructions on the LAPACK addon page on the wiki. Works fine on Linux, and mostly on Windows. However the new section about how to identify a LAPACK version doesn't work on Windows:
ilaver_jlapack2_ (,0);(,0);(,0) |domain error in cd, executing dyad 15!:0 | ilaver_jlapack2_(,0);(,0);(,0) Any ideas on how best to address this? Simplest would be to document that issue on the wiki, but if it's fixable that would be even better!! On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:28 AM Ric Sherlock <tikk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Any change to improve and simplify the user experience for the > `math/lapack2` addon is welcome from my POV! > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 3:22 AM chris burke <cbu...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > >> On point 1, it is not necessary that addon code be compatible with >> earlier versions. >> >> You can use RELEASE in the manifest to specify which releases are >> supported. Use j904 or j9.4 to support only the current release, e.g. >> >> RELEASE=: 'j9.4' >> >> If so, the builds for earlier versions will remain unchanged. >> >> See also code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons/Developers_Guide#Release >> >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 1:25 AM bill lam <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Your contributions are always welcome! >> > >> > On the point 2, & means no memu applied. The trailing \0 might be >> absent. >> > Nevertheless, LAPACK are fortran routines so that C style strings are >> not >> > expected. >> > Therefore I _think_ that is OK. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:55 PM Igor Zhuravlov <zhuravlov...@ya.ru> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Dear addon maintainers, >> > > >> > > 1. Addon code looks outdated a bit. Is it done intentional to provide >> > > addon >> > > compatibility with older JE versions? If not, I'd like to prepare pull >> > > request >> > > to update code. No hardcore with multitasking and modifier trains, >> just a >> > > few >> > > nice J9.4 features, plus some refactoring and bug fixes. >> > > >> > > 2. LAPACK specs distinguish "in" (i.e. read-only) parameters type. >> Those >> > > are >> > > eligible candidates to be marked with & instead of * in parameters >> list of >> > > addon interface verbs, to avoid copying. Are there any objections for >> this >> > > massive change? >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Regards, >> > > Igor >> > > >> > > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > For information about J forums see >> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
