Skip to content

Add IBLAVER to BLAS - #1446

Open
mohawk2 wants to merge 13 commits into
Reference-LAPACK:masterfrom
mohawk2:iblaver
Open

mohawk2 wants to merge 13 commits into
Reference-LAPACK:masterfrom
mohawk2:iblaver

Conversation

@mohawk2

@mohawk2 mohawk2 commented Oct 24, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

As discussed on #1420, this adds IBLAVER to BLAS, allowing independent tracking of the version of BLAS from its "parent" LAPACK.

I have based this off the branch in #1407 since there are overlapping areas of config touched, so that will need merging first.

Checklist

  • The documentation has been updated.
  • If the PR solves a specific issue, it is set to be closed on merge.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Oct 24, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.75000% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 69.72%. Comparing base (c9713d3) to head (0127e84).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
CBLAS/src/cblas_xerbla.c 50.00% 5 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
LAPACKE/utils/lapacke_xerbla.c 80.95% 2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
BLAS/SRC/xerbla_blas.f90 83.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
CBLAS/src/xerbla.c 77.77% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
SRC/xerbla_lapack.f90 83.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
CBLAS/testing/c_xerbla.c 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1446   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.72%   69.72%           
=======================================
  Files        6204     6208    +4     
  Lines      497194   497264   +70     
  Branches    23430    23416   -14     
=======================================
+ Hits       346652   346721   +69     
  Misses     150116   150116           
- Partials      426      427    +1     
Components Coverage Δ
BLAS 99.76% <90.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
CBLAS 97.07% <64.00%> (+0.09%) ⬆️
LAPACK 82.66% <86.66%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
LAPACKE 2.17% <80.95%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
TMGLIB 55.69% <ø> (ø)
BLAS testing 88.79% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
CBLAS testing 89.62% <94.11%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
LAPACK testing 82.25% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
LAPACKE testing ∅ <ø> (∅)
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
BLAS/SRC/iblaver.f 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
BLAS/SRC/xerbla.f 71.42% <100.00%> (+71.42%) ⬆️
BLAS/TESTING/cblat1.f 92.82% <100.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
BLAS/TESTING/cblat2.f 85.49% <100.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
BLAS/TESTING/cblat3.f 90.98% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
BLAS/TESTING/dblat1.f 93.39% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
BLAS/TESTING/dblat2.f 85.39% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
BLAS/TESTING/dblat3.f 89.46% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
BLAS/TESTING/sblat1.f 94.24% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
BLAS/TESTING/sblat2.f 85.39% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
... and 44 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Harness.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c9713d3...0127e84. Read the comment docs.

@langou langou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the work and the pul request. Note: It might have been preferrable to have two pull requests instead of one. One pull request with IBLAVER and one pull request with XERBLA_BLAS.

@mohawk2

mohawk2 commented Oct 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks for the work and the pul request. Note: It might have been preferrable to have two pull requests instead of one. One pull request with IBLAVER and one pull request with XERBLA_BLAS.

@langou There are two separate pull requests. This one, and #1407, as noted in the initial PR? Should I have spelled that out in a different way?

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
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.

3 participants