Bug 1852549

Summary: blis: no support for 64-bit builds on s390x
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Iñaki Ucar <i.ucar86>
Component: blisAssignee: Dave Love <dave.love>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: dave.love
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: s390x   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-07-01 11:14:15 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Iñaki Ucar 2020-06-30 16:53:39 UTC
Blis has

// Determine if we are on a 64-bit or 32-bit architecture.
#if defined(_M_X64) || defined(__x86_64) || defined(__aarch64__) || \
    defined(_ARCH_PPC64)
  #define BLIS_ARCH_64
#else
  #define BLIS_ARCH_32
#endif

as you can see in https://github.com/flame/blis/blob/f377bb448512f0b578263387eed7eaf8f2b72bb7/frame/include/bli_system.h#L64-L70

Therefore, it doesn't detect that s390x is a 64-bit architecture, and as a result, current blis-*64 packages on that platform are 32-bit builds.

Comment 1 Dave Love 2020-07-01 11:14:15 UTC
Thanks.  It should be fixed in rawhide, but I'll have to go back to it for f32.
In case you're a z-series expert, I could probably improve it a bit with information about micro-arch features; I did have a look a while ago, and couldn't immediately find enough.

Comment 2 Iñaki Ucar 2020-07-01 11:19:52 UTC
Unfortunately, I'm no z-series expert. :) I just stumbled upon this issue because I was packaging FlexiBLAS, which wraps several BLAS/LAPACK backends, and this one wasn't detected for that platform. As it turns out, bli_info_get_int_type_size() was returning 32. :)

Comment 3 Dave Love 2020-07-02 09:28:22 UTC
This isn't the place for a discussion, but I don't think packaging flexiblas would be helpful. It doesn't solve any real problem as far as I can tell, and will cause more trouble.

Comment 4 Iñaki Ucar 2020-07-02 09:57:49 UTC
IMO, it solves two problems at once, and I don't see what trouble it may cause. Please, read the change proposal and follow the associated discussion in the devel mailing list: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager. All the feedback we can gather would be helpful to reach a conclusion.