This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [wwwdocs] Add "-fexternal-blas" to gcc-4.3/changes.html
- From: Erik Edelmann <erik dot edelmann at iki dot fi>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:43:59 +0300
- Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Add "-fexternal-blas" to gcc-4.3/changes.html
- References: <453BF79A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <453C85BE.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:05:02AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Does it work with BLAS only or with any lapack style library? In this
> > case at least the documentation should read like "calls to a linear
> > algebra library
> > like BLAS or LAPACK for matrix". Of course in that case I also
> > dislike the option name, but
> > I don't have a particular better idea either.
> But if you think that many people think of only Netlib's BLAS when one
> uses the term "BLAS", we indeed need to find a better wording.
My impression of the situation is that the name "BLAS" is a general name
for libraries implmementing a specified set of routines, rather than a
specific implementation -- just as "Fortran" is a name of a language
rather than a specific compiler. "Netlib's BLAS" is often referred to
as "the reference implmementation". Since that implmementation is the
one that defines what routines a BLAS library is supposed to implement
and how they are supposed to behave, it could perhaps be considered to
be a little more BLAS than other BLASes. OTOH, the very idea, if I have
understood it correctly, is that that implementation is just a reference
implementation, i.e. a kind of a standard expressed as code, and that
others can (and are encouraged to) provide better optimized
implementations. Therefore, both the wording of the docs and the
option are IMHO OK.