On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Sturla Molden <sturla.mol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/04/14 01:30, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> I finally read this paper: >> >> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/flame/pubs/blis2_toms_rev2.pdf >> >> and I have to say that I'm no longer so convinced that OpenBLAS is the >> right starting point. > > I think OpenBLAS in the long run is doomed as an OSS project. Having > huge portions of the source in assembly is not sustainable in 2014. > OpenBLAS (like GotoBLAS2 before it) runs a high risk of becoming > abandonware.
Have you read the paper I linked? I really recommend it. BLIS is apparently 95% straight-up-C, plus a slot where you stick in a tiny CPU-specific super-optimized kernel [1]. So this localizes the nasty stuff to one tiny function, plus most of the kernels that have been written so far do in fact use intrinsics [2]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/blis/wiki/KernelsHowTo [2] https://code.google.com/p/blis/wiki/HardwareSupport -- Nathaniel J. Smith Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of Edinburgh http://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
