Skip to content
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

Add forgotten API_SUFFIX wrappers to LAPACKE_?TFSM and fix the MacOS CI jobs #1057

Closed

Conversation

martin-frbg
Copy link
Collaborator

Description
The missing API_SUFFIX wrappers appear to be an oversight from the recent #1042
This version of the PR combines my previous #1046 with my unrelated PR #1045 to
fix the CI jobs that got broken by the removal of gcc-11 from the underlying image
(as requested by @weslleyspereira)

langou
langou previously approved these changes Oct 1, 2024
@martin-frbg martin-frbg dismissed langou’s stale review October 1, 2024 14:34

The merge-base changed after approval.

langou
langou previously approved these changes Oct 1, 2024
@martin-frbg martin-frbg dismissed langou’s stale review October 1, 2024 14:40

The merge-base changed after approval.

weslleyspereira
weslleyspereira previously approved these changes Oct 1, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@weslleyspereira weslleyspereira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! Looks good to me and the CI is happy.

@martin-frbg martin-frbg dismissed weslleyspereira’s stale review October 1, 2024 14:51

The merge-base changed after approval.

@martin-frbg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I notice @langou merged the original #1046 in the meantime, so I guess the best way forward would be to merge #1045 and close this one here ?

@martin-frbg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

(and obviously it is not me dismissing your reviews, but github hiccuping due to that "partial" merge)

@langou
Copy link
Contributor

langou commented Oct 1, 2024

Let us revert my previous merge #1046. And start clean.

@martin-frbg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Idk, the two PRs are technically unrelated (which is why I had them separate originally) and this here is exactly identical content-wise. So IMHO reverting just to get this one in would be messier ?

weslleyspereira
weslleyspereira previously approved these changes Oct 2, 2024
@martin-frbg martin-frbg dismissed weslleyspereira’s stale review October 2, 2024 15:30

The merge-base changed after approval.

langou
langou previously approved these changes Oct 2, 2024
@martin-frbg martin-frbg dismissed langou’s stale review October 2, 2024 15:49

The merge-base changed after approval.

langou
langou previously approved these changes Oct 2, 2024
@weslleyspereira
Copy link
Collaborator

Idk, the two PRs are technically unrelated (which is why I had them separate originally) and this here is exactly identical content-wise. So IMHO reverting just to get this one in would be messier ?

You were right about the mess.

We ended up merging #1045 and #1046, so we can close this one without merge. Sorry for the trouble!

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