-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
Test without OpenBLAS backend #18
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
Conversation
|
When not cleared, the dot related functions were probably calling openblas. These usually have a return value from the fortran code and are always a bit painful to deal with. The rest looks pretty good. |
|
The cblas symbols have not been mangled (and it is a bit surprising that tests on linux and windows with Julia 1.12 are still passing in CI - but they do fail locally): |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #18 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.66% 91.66%
=======================================
Files 1 1
Lines 12 12
=======================================
Hits 11 11
Misses 1 1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
I have also noticed some issues with triangular solves. There are different errors on Julia 1.10 vs 1.12 - so that could be due to LBT issues. |
|
cc @imciner2 |
|
I have a potential fix incoming for BLIS to fix the cblas name mangling. |
|
The CBLAS forwards are fixed in JuliaPackaging/Yggdrasil#12298 which fixes the The triangular solve stuff needs to come from LAPACK - so this PR by itself is unlikely to go through without #6 |
|
I think the issue with the CBLAS symbols not being picked up is because we autodetect the symbol suffix using BLAS, but then assume it is applied everywhere. I believe you could fix this in the package loading by providing hints to the loader function that it has the non-suffixed symbols. But note that because that won't have the BLAS function with it, we would need to specify all the details about the function interface explicitly (e.g., integer width, complex retval, etc.). Alternately, I am increasinly wondering if the design of LBT means we can get away with not suffixing the symbols anymore - because we lookup the symbol address in the exact library we want, I think we can tolerate the same symbol names in two different libraries (but I think the libraries definitely need to be named differently to allow the loader to differentiate between them). @giordano @staticfloat do either of you have any thoughts on the name mangling now? |
|
@imciner2 My latest patches to BLIS fix the CBLAS symbols cleanly for now, and everything has 64_ suffixes. I think we are good to go here. The triangular solve tests should probably not be in LinearAlgebra's blas.jl tests, since |
Perhaps this should move to the LBT repo so we don't lose the conversation? |
|
Implemented in #20. |
No description provided.