Remove auxiliary GEQRS, GELQS

[angsch]

GEQRS and GELQS were likely computational routines once, (they have an input argument check, which auxiliary/test routines typically do not have) but have been superseded by GELS a long time ago. The only remaining occurrences are in the tests CHKQR and CHKLQ, where they are auxiliary routines to widen the test coverage.

• Replace GEQRS and GELQS by calls to GELS in tests.
• Remove the functions from the error exit tests.
• Delete GEQRS and GELQS.

This closes #709

An alternative to deleting the routines is to move them to SRC/DEPRECATED/. Any opinions?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (2983298) 0.00% compared to head (a9b40bc) 0.00%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

❗ Current head a9b40bc differs from pull request most recent head 0d1e3ec. Consider uploading reports for the commit 0d1e3ec to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #900   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage    0.00%    0.00%           
=======================================
  Files        1918     1918           
  Lines      188614   188614           
=======================================
  Misses     188614   188614           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[martin-frbg]

My preference would be to move them to DEPRECATED - they must have been in LAPACK for decades and one never knows what old but perfectly working code out there would be broken by their removal.

[langou]

Thanks Angelika.

WRT: remove or move to DEPRECATED. I am fine either way. Either () we remove or () we move to DEPRECATED. I have a slight preference for 'remove'. I agree with Martin that it is likely that some codes out there use GEQRS or GELQS. However 'removing' or 'moving to DEPRECATED' will imply an error at build time for these codes either way. The idea of DEPRECATED was that it would be easier for folks to find the routines that we removed from LAPACK. But I think that, with the usage of GitHub, we do not really need DEPRECATED any longer. It should be feasible for folks to find these routines in the git repository of GitHub by searching the history of the code.

[martin-frbg]

DEPRECATED was that it would be easier for folks to find the routines that we removed from LAPACK. But I think that, with the usage of GitHub, we do not really need DEPRECATED any longer. It should be feasible for folks to find these routines in the git repository of GitHub by searching the history of the code.

That viewpoint is certainly fine when assuming that the end user builds everything from source and will be only slightly inconvenienced by a build-breaking change. But I assume it will be a bigger problem for binary distributions (or their users), which most likely define BUILD_DEPRECATED already for maximum compatibility and would need to patch the deleted routines back in .

[langou]

That's a good point. I missed this point. Very well then. This makes me change my opinion.

Based on Martin's rationale, I changed my opinion and I think it is better to move the routine to DEPRECATED as opposed to remove them.