Re: [Jgeneral] math/lapack2 addon questions
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 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 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 > 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 Addon code looks outdated a bit.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
Re: [Jgeneral] math/lapack2 addon questions
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 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 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
Re: [Jgeneral] math/lapack2 addon questions
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 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
[Jgeneral] math/lapack2 addon questions
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
