On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:55, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > I'm afraid the sudden appearance of the blas dot for complex numbers > problem is my fault. > > Traditionally since 199x we never used the complex dot product from blas > because of the return complex type problem. VecDot_Seq() used #ifdef for > complex and a simple loop. > > Since some blas norm suck I off-hand told Shri to use dot for norm and > wasn't thinking the complex case. > Most BLAS implementations don't have great code for BLAS level 1 anyway and it tends to be memory bandwidth limited, so I don't have a problem with using a simple loop. > > Since then, of course, the complex dot problem has been coming up. > > Maybe it is best to continue to never use complex blas dot and just > change the VecNorm_ routines to use norm for complex and not dot.? Just > throw away this silly problem and time sink? I think we should use norm for norm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120227/f244e0e7/attachment.html>
