On 28/06/2016 18:50, Ralf Gommers wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov <mailto:chris.bar...@noaa.gov>> wrote: > This doesn't really matter too much imho, we have to support Accelerate > either way. do we? -- so if we go OpenBlas, and someone want to do a simple build from source, what happens? Do they get accelerate? Indeed, unless they go through the effort of downloading a separate BLAS and LAPACK, and figuring out how to make that visible to numpy.distutils. Very few users will do that. or would we ship OpenBlas source itself? Definitely don't want to do that. or would they need to install OpenBlas some other way? Yes, or MKL, or ATLAS, or BLIS. We have support for all these, and that's a good thing. Making a uniform choice for our official binaries on various OSes doesn't reduce the need or effort for supporting those other options. >> >> Faster to fix bugs with good support from main developer. No >> >> multiprocessing crashes for Python 2.7. this seems to be the compelling one. How does the performance compare? For most routines performance seems to be comparable, and both are much better than ATLAS. When there's a significant difference, I have the impression that OpenBLAS is more often the slower one (example: https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/533).
In that case: -1 (but this seems so obvious that I'm probably missing the point of the +1s) _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
