On 27.02.2012 18:01, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov > <mailto: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. > > 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? > > > Why is this such a problem? Just use PetscScalar for the BLASdot_() > return type and its fine.
For instance MKL's BLAS returns result for zdot in the first argument and PETSc's BLASdot_() fails there. > > Matt > > > Barry > > > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which > their experiments lead. > -- Norbert Wiener -- Regards, Alexander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120227/70023764/attachment.html>
