Revert "Fix a few naming conflicts in LinAlg/BLAS. Fixes #14268." #22374
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was referenced Jun 15, 2017
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The "fix" of JuliaLang/LinearAlgebra.jl#289 was not the right one since
LinAlg.dotandLinAlg.BLAS.dothave different signatures. Hence, this accidentally changed the behavior ofdotand made it behave likevecdot. I've added a test to avoid that we accidentally reintroduce the behavior again.At some point, we might adjust the signatures in the
BLASmodule to match those in theLinAlgmodule. Basically, the signatures inBLASare more permissive right now and allow for higher dimensional arrays instead of requiring areshapetoVector. However, I think we should respect our abstractions and enforce that the input hasN=1, but that can be done in a separate PR.This supersedes #22240.