[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OpenBLAS and performance
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
Re: OpenBLAS and performance |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:46:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.0-alpha3; emacs 25.3.1 |
Dave Love <address@hidden> writes:
> Another point about the OB package is that it excludes LAPACK for some
> reason that doesn't seem to be recorded. I think that should be
> included, partly for convenience, and partly because it optimizes some
> of LAPACK.
That was me, I think. I did this because I assumed that if users want
LAPACK they’d just install the lapack package. If this turns out to be
a misguided idea because the OB LAPACK differs then I’m fine with
enabling LAPACK in the OB package.
(I’m not very knowlegdeable about all of this. I just happened to
package OpenBLAS first.)
--
Ricardo
GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, (continued)
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Pjotr Prins, 2017/12/20
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/12/21
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Dave Love, 2017/12/22
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/12/22
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Pjotr Prins, 2017/12/20
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/12/20
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Pjotr Prins, 2017/12/21
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Eric Bavier, 2017/12/20
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Dave Love, 2017/12/21
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Dave Love, 2017/12/21
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance,
Ricardo Wurmus <=
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/12/21
- Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Dave Love, 2017/12/22
Re: OpenBLAS and performance, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/12/21