Re: port:lapack useful?

Takeshi Enomoto writes: > Dear David, > >> I just noticed that you created a port lapack (including BLAS) in r146856. >> Is this really useful? We already have the ATLAS port which provides BLAS >> and LAPACK; the OpenBLAS port which provides exactly the same

Re: port:lapack useful?

Hi Takeshi, Thanks for the response. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Takeshi Enomoto wrote: > > * LAPACK from netlib is active. > I do not doubt that the netlib LAPACK is active -- this is of course the reference implementation that the vendors use in optimization. >

Re: port:lapack useful?

Dear David, > I just noticed that you created a port lapack (including BLAS) in r146856. Is > this really useful? We already have the ATLAS port which provides BLAS and > LAPACK; the OpenBLAS port which provides exactly the same implementation of > LAPACK from netlib as your port lapack; and

port:lapack useful?

Hello Takeshi, I just noticed that you created a port lapack (including BLAS) in r146856. Is this really useful? We already have the ATLAS port which provides BLAS and LAPACK; the OpenBLAS port which provides exactly the same implementation of LAPACK from netlib as your port lapack; and the