Skip to content

Add support for BLAS and LAPACK dependencies (continued) #14773

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mgorny
Copy link
Contributor

@mgorny mgorny commented Jul 8, 2025

This a rebase / continuation of #10921.

So far just gotten it to work again, will look through the previous review next.

Copy link
Member

@dcbaker dcbaker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Didn't take too close of a look, but just a few modernization things and type annotation things.

@mgorny
Copy link
Contributor Author

mgorny commented Jul 18, 2025

Thanks for your comments. To be honest, I haven't gotten to cleaning up / modernizing the code yet — so far my main focus was getting it to work correctly :-). But pushed the suggested fixes now.

@mgorny mgorny force-pushed the dependency-openblas branch 3 times, most recently from de104e9 to 13b93a8 Compare July 21, 2025 18:02
@mgorny mgorny force-pushed the dependency-openblas branch from bfa9c78 to c4f4671 Compare July 21, 2025 18:46
@mgorny mgorny marked this pull request as ready for review July 22, 2025 05:54
@mgorny mgorny requested a review from jpakkane as a code owner July 22, 2025 05:54
@mgorny
Copy link
Contributor Author

mgorny commented Jul 22, 2025

Okay, I think this is ready for review. FWIU the "linux" test failures are due to the test images not being updated — and the Ubuntu image failure is flakiness of the zig version check.

keyword, with possible values:

- `'interface: lp64'` (default) or `'interface: ilp64'`: to select the default
integer size
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I understand why you did this, but it's conceptually not really correct. An "interface" is not really a module. Could we have some other way of expressing this information that is more explicit about what it does?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants