On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:42:05 -0500, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> My point is not only do they get a slower GEEV but they get a slower
>> everything in LAPACK. [...] Why not just use LAPACK?
>
> Yup, I get your point. But Lapack usually needs a BLAS, and the
> original (flawed) idea was that a fast BLAS would produce a competitive
> Lapack.
>
What, Jack made a mistake? Never.
Does ESSL itself contain "the BLAS" or is there also a libblas type thingy
on the IBM you could link against?
None of this really matters because you are still stuck writing the
configure test for geev.
Barry
> Jed
