El 2 de julio de 2009 21:57, Brian Gough <[email protected]> escribió: > I've checked the BLAS papers again[1] and you are right, we should be > catching the other errors like M<0 listed there. So we need to do two > things (i) add the checks for those errors and (ii) provide a way of > setting a custom cblas_xerbla function to avoid the hard-coded abort() > at least when using GSL CBLAS. Let me know if these are things you > could help with. Thanks.
Hi, I don't understand clearly the point (ii). It can be implemented a tuned cblas_xerbla() for the cblas functions in gsl, but when you link your program with other blas implementation, the called xerbla won't be the gsl one. About the gsl_cblas* wrapper, all test errors must be implemented for a correct error code return in all cases. The problem (probably not is a real problem) is that when gsl_cblas* is called the error checking is performed twice: in the gsl_cblas* routine and in the final cblas_* function. I can try to implement the error checking for cblas_* functions in my spare time, but problably will be a slow task. -- ***************************************** José Luis García Pallero [email protected] (o< / / \ V_/_ Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy! ***************************************** _______________________________________________ Help-gsl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gsl
