At Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:46:39 +0200, José Luis García Pallero wrote: > 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.
Yes that's true, but I think there's nothing we can really do about that. Other libraries probably have their own way to set the behavior of xerbla. We do need to provide the user with a way to override the abort() in xerbla in the GSL CBLAS at least. > 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 don't think it's a major problem if the checking is done twice, the overhead of checking should still be small for any non-trivial operation. > I can try to implement the error checking for cblas_* functions in > my spare time, but problably will be a slow task. Given the similarity between the functions, perhaps it is possible the generate some of the checking code automatically with a script or at least reduce it to a few standard C macros. -- Brian Gough (GSL Maintainer) Support freedom by joining the FSF http://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf?referrer=37 _______________________________________________ Help-gsl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gsl
