Re: RFC: Naming convention for ILP64 variant of BLAS/LAPACK
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:40:47 +0000
- From: Mo Zhou <lumin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: RFC: Naming convention for ILP64 variant of BLAS/LAPACK
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:57:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Proposal:
> > * The "-ilp64" postfix should be appended to the SONAME of all the new
> > shared objects that provide ILP64 interface. For example:
> > libblas.so.3 (LP64) -> libblas-ilp64.so.3 (ILP64)
> > As a result, the same postfix should be added to the binary package
> > name. For example:
> > libblas3 (LP64) -> libblas-ilp64-3 (ILP64)
> > * No change will be made to all the present BLAS/LAPACK libraires that
> > provide LP64 interface.
> > * No change will be made to either API or ABI of BLAS/LAPACK.
> > * This proposal only applies to 64-bit-capable architectures.
> Why do you want to retain the libraries with 32-bit indices? Is it
> for ABI compatibility with Fortran code that uses them directly?
BLAS/LAPACK providers with 32-bit index have to stay in the archive for
a while for compatibility. And BLAS/LAPACK maintainers will have enough
time to align all the affected pacakges and diagnoze with possible
> What's the time frame for these changes? Is it likely that a Fortran
> ABI bump occurs before that anyway?
I have no ETA. 32-bit and 64-bit index version of BLAS/LAPACK packages
are expected to co-exist for a while. Only when all the reverse
dependencies don't break with 64-bit index version should we consider
dropping the 32-bit index version.