This has been corrected in rev 1541 and the Errata page has been updated
Thank you for reporting the issue.
On May 1, 2015, at 11:42 AM, ICL <julie@Domain.Removed> wrote:
Ok, perfect - that is an easy fix.
Thank you for your detailed explanation
On May 1, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Andrew James <andyjaj@Domain.Removed
Bugs 111 and 0046 report two issues with incorrect rwork sizes. This has now
been fixed in the documentation, but an examination of LAPACKE_zgesdd.c
shows that it uses the old and incorrect rwork sizes (because the LAPACKE
interface prepares the workspaces for the user). This means that the LAPACKE
interface to zgesdd will fail, for the same cases described in bugs 111 and
I can confirm that I have tried to use the LAPACKE interface and it fails,
unless LAPACKE_zgesdd.c is edited to fix the rwork size.
On 1 May 2015 at 04:51, julie <julie@Domain.Removed
do you have a testing for this? Do you know if the issue is only with
I will look at the bug next week.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 5:49 AM, Andrew James <andyjaj@Domain.Removed
Further to bugs 111 and 0046, the rwork size in zgesdd is still incorrect
when called via the lapacke interface in LAPACKE_zgesdd.c.
Lapack mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...