This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- To: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- From: Mumit Khan <khan at NanoTech dot Wisc dot EDU>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:05:55 -0500
- cc: Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn at galileo dot thp dot univie dot ac dot at>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> writes:
>
> > Since LAPACK performance depends heavily on BLAS performance
> > (a lower-level subroutine library called by LAPACK), perhaps the
> > release criteria should say explicitly what BLAS versions will be used?
> > I would suggest either the reference implementation (very vanilla Fortran),
> > or (probably more realistic) the Kagstrom, Ling, and Van Loan GEMM-based
> > implementation (still portable Fortran, but tuned for computers with
> > caches). Both are available from the same netlib sites that distribute
> > LAPACK.
>
> Hmmm, I never tried anything else than the default BLAS - eeks, more
> options to test ...
The default BLAS tends to be rather bad on most machines, with just a
few exceptions.
Toon, how do you feel about using Atlas http://www.netlib.org/atlas/
instead of LAPACK-3.0 (or in addition to LAPACK 2.0)?
Regards,
Mumit