From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DECC4338F for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B600C60EE8 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org B600C60EE8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=busybox.net Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E7E4048C; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yu1WuOM62zEi; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07F44044B; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789DA1BF83C for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7510683372 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FK_vIKm-jGJm for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net (relay10.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.230]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4853083267 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (Authenticated sender: thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com) by relay10.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E9C8240002; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:57:39 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Arnout Vandecappelle Message-ID: <20210803225739.15e612d5@windsurf> In-Reply-To: References: <20210725111231.359830-1-arnout@mind.be> <20210725111231.359830-3-arnout@mind.be> <20210725175709.7338b4a5@x230_1.trabucayre.com> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 3/3] package/armadillo: allow to select between lapack or openblas X-BeenThere: buildroot@busybox.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: buildroot@busybox.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@busybox.net Sender: "buildroot" Hello, On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:24:37 +0200 Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > fortran is only required if lapack has to be used: if lapack is said as optional this is > > maybe not required ? > > Oh, I intended to insert a comment there but apparently forgot: We need either > openblas (which doesn't require fortran) or lapack (which does require fortran). > Therefore, on architectures which do support openblas, we should have a comment > that just says "C++", while on architectures that don't support openblas (but do > support lapack) we should have a comment that says "C++ and Fortran". ... but this is exactly what your patch does: comment "armadillo needs a toolchain w/ C++" depends on BR2_PACKAGE_OPENBLAS_ARCH_SUPPORTS depends on !BR2_INSTALL_LIBSTDCPP comment "armadillo needs a toolchain w/ fortran, C++" depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_OPENBLAS_ARCH_SUPPORTS # otherwise, see comment above depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LAPACK_ARCH_SUPPORTS depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_FORTRAN || !BR2_INSTALL_LIBSTDCPP If we're on an arch supported by openblas, "needs a toolchain w/ C++" is displayed. If we're on an arch not supported by openblas, but supported by lapack, "needs a toolchain w/ fortran, C++" is displayed. So it all looks good to me. > > It's an open question: > > until now armadillo was always built with blas and lapack support provided by > > clapack. To avoid breaking current behaviour (lapack support) why not > > considering selecting lapack package unconditionaly and let user choise for > > blas support? I know the main issue is the dependency to fortran... > > What you're basically saying is that in the choice between lapack and openblas, > lapack should be the default, right? > > Can you maybe explain a bit what your original reason for this patch was? > Armadillo basically hides the BLAS implementation, so unless it's buggy, you > shouldn't even notice which implementation is behind. Also, the lapack package > itself says that you should not use its BLAS implementation but you should use a > better one instead. I was also confused by Gwenhael's comment, including with his reply to your question. So at this point, I've applied your patch as-is, we can always improve/fix later on if needed. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot