Web lists-archives.com

Re: RFC: Naming convention for ILP64 variant of BLAS/LAPACK

On 2018-10-21 17:16 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 09:51:15AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> > about naming convention of SONAME and package name.
> > 
> > As discussed in [1][2][3], Debian will need a set of ILP64[4] interface
> > to BLAS/LAPACK in the future.
> Could you please describe what you mean?  All 64-bit Debian
> architectures are LP64.  So building a single binary using ILP64 will
> even break the ABI for glibc and it will most likely not run very far.
> (A file descriptor is defined as "int", so even the most basic file
> calls will be incompatible.)

I wondered about this. The mail said that the BLAS/LAPACK ABIs do not
change, so I presumed that this was about internal data layouts for
the data being passed which. But reading the bugreps it does sound
like just a new ABI using ILP64. That would be properly done using
multiarch or multilib paths, and needs some thought about how best to
lay things out and what else would be needed to make it work. Are any
other packages likely to start wanting to use ILP64 ABIs? I guess it's
very much an 'HPC' sort of thing at the moment.

So yeah, some clarification in order I think, and an explanation of use-cases.

Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature