On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > 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 >> > >> 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.
My point is not only do they get a slower GEEV but they get a slower everything in LAPACK. If they are not willing to suffer IBM's arrogance and Jack's total incompetence that let IBM provide a different interface why link with ESSL at all? Why not just use LAPACK? But you are correct a more specific configure check should be added and then a more specific ifdef used in the PETSc code. Anyone is welcome to add this support but I sure as hell am not going to do it myself. > >> 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. Bill Gropp managed to get his Blue Waters in 2009 so why couldn't Kaust :-). Barry > > Jed
