Skip to content

Conversation

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member

Continuation from #6553

@ViralBShah ViralBShah force-pushed the vs/lapack311-2 branch 2 times, most recently from a5192ee to ab91573 Compare May 7, 2023 15:11
@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member Author

ViralBShah commented May 8, 2023

Can we use Julia 1.9 as the conpat version here and hence LBT 5.4?

Cc @amontoison

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member Author

ViralBShah commented May 8, 2023

1.9.1 is going to have LBT 5.8. I suppose the only lever of control we have here is which version of Julia to use. JuliaLang/julia#49680

I feel that Julia 1.9 is the right compat to define.

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member Author

@giordano ok to merge?

@amontoison
Copy link
Contributor

1.9.1 is going to have LBT 5.8. I suppose the only lever of control we have here is which version of Julia to use. JuliaLang/julia#49680

I feel that Julia 1.9 is the right compat to define.

Oh, I suppose that you can use LBT 5.7.0 in Julia 1.9 because you compile it from sources when you build Julia.
We are unable to compile an artifact here with LBT 5.7.0 directly because the compat entry of LBT_jll is 1.10 but that's fine to link with LBT 5.4.0 because it's compatible with versions of LBT in [5.4.0, 6.0.0[.

Do not use -cpp and -DUSE_ISNAN on 32-bit platforms
Avoid libgfortran4 builds on aarch64 linux for LAPACK_jll

Co-authored-by: Alexis Montoison <alexis.montoison@polymtl.ca>
@ViralBShah ViralBShah merged commit c9f9e28 into master May 9, 2023
@ViralBShah ViralBShah deleted the vs/lapack311-2 branch May 9, 2023 19:23
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