Bug 891923
| Summary: | Create 64-bit package | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola> |
| Component: | lapack | Assignee: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | c.david86, fkluknav, tcallawa |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-01-07 21:59:32 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
Susi Lehtola
2013-01-04 13:51:25 UTC
.. and what this mean is that you should add -fdefault-integer-8 to the fortran flags. It seems like all this needs is for -fdefault-integer-8 to be added when compiling for x86_64. Is there any benefit to the FORTRAN INTEGER being 32bit on x86_64? Arrays can be bigger since there's no 2^32 ~ 4.29 billion element size limit. See comment #21 in bug #739398. No, I know the PROs of having 64bit FORTRAN INTEGER. What I'm asking is, on x86_64, are there any CONs to having 64bit FORTRAN INTEGER? Oh, whoops! :D Well, legacy code might break. There also might be some speed and memory issues. I'd be quite wary of changing the way things work by default. Fortran integers are 4 byte by default, so ... For example, if C code calls a routine with integer arguments, things will go haywire straight away. Okay, good enough for me. I'll make a lapack64 variant in rawhide. As of 3.4.1-3.fc19, there are the following new subpackages (on x86_64 only): lapack64 lapack64-devel lapack64-static blas64 blas64-devel blas64-static Lemme know if these do not work for you. Provides: blas64 = 3.4.1-3.fc19 blas64(x86-64) = 3.4.1-3.fc19 libblas.so.3()(64bit) This doesn't look right. You should change the sonames as well. Otherwise looks good. Hmm, okay. Hacking the sonames will be trickier, but I'm on it. 3.4.1-4.fc19 will have the fixed sonames. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4847088 |