On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:18:54 -0500, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Does PESSL have some of the same symbols in it as ESSL? If it has > any symbols that are identical but map to different functions there > would be a problem. We haven't messed with PESSL in many, many > years so perhaps they fixed this? Also PESSL use to use threads to > do some of its parallelism. In our MPI on every core model of PETSc > this doesn't make sense because the cores will be over subscribed > with several PESSL threads per core. Basically it use to be if you > linked PESSL into PETSc things didn't work properly. If that is > fixed then the check could be removed.
I don't know, maybe Aron or someone who does more work with BG/P can comment. > You really don't want to link LAPACK first because then basically > you get the LAPACK versions of the codes which (one would presume) > are slower then the same interfaces in ESSL (otherwise why bother > using ESSL). For the fast BLAS? I agree with your point, but I suspect lots of users would prefer to tolerate a somewhat slower GEEV in exchange for not having to write two versions of their code. > When is KAUST going to grow a brain and order a IBM Blue Waters > machine as the next machine and not a IBM Blue Gene? Presumably as soon as IBM is ready to install it in 2009. Jed
