On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jose E. Roman <[email protected]> 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? 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/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
