Ilhan Polat

If it is possible we should not deal with errors, since I did not have ufuncs in mind I did a casual choice but now it is not a discussion....

In most cases it over-allocates that's why it is asking 100 a fixed number. But uses input dependent many entries.

Keeping it strictly to the dynamic allocation, if we allocate beforehand as much as we can before we send things to `ufunc` rabbit hole, and leave the remaining a few...

As @pv mentioned, maybe it is better to actually try to compile the legacy vendored libraries ARPACK and ODEPACK first through the NAG compiler to detect 3rd party issues. If...

["resolve", "fixes", "closes" and some others](https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/managing-your-work-on-github/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword) are keywords before the issue number that triggers the issue closing. I reworded it now but we'll handle that if it closes it

> IMO we would probably lose all the printing/timing info. I have the same opinion but no idea how this is used in the wild. However, I got rid of...

@ev-br I've restructured things a bit and removed the timing and the printing stuff. Now only errors I'm getting is the BLAS and LAPACK functions not being found. Could you...

CBLAS is also fine, they have the same signature but no dice yet. I used the following ```C # define DNRM2 cblas_dnrm2 # define DCOPY cblas_dcopy # define DDOT cblas_ddot...

I think we have no other option than what `special/lapack_...h` did. Or start using LAPACKE properly everywhere.

OK so we need the prototypes regardless then. The rest is just unchecked buggy code that I will go through anyways. Thanks a lot