Gentoo Archives: gentoo-science

From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@×××××××.net>
To: gentoo-science@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-science] lapack transition
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:02:20
Message-Id: 4308A528.5090608@cesmail.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-science] lapack transition by Peter Bienstman
1 I just got an email from Clint Whaley on the Atlas mailing list. He's
2 sent out 3.7.11 with bugfixes. Given the re-org, should I post a request
3 for 3.7.11 on bugzilla? When is the re-org going to happen?
4
5 Peter Bienstman wrote:
6
7 >On Sunday 21 August 2005 17:33, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
8 >
9 >
10 >>I just returned to this list -- what is the "new infrastructure" we are
11 >>"preparing for"?
12 >>
13 >>
14 >
15 >The ability to switch between different lapack implementations (reference,
16 >ATLAS, later perhaps MKL) at run time.
17 >
18 >
19 >
20 >>Could we get a "testing/unstable" Atlas in Portage? Right now, they are
21 >>at 3.7.10, and I only see a 3.7.10 for blas-atlas, not for atlas itself
22 >>or lapack-atlas. I think the x86-64 users will want 3.7.10 across the
23 >>board, and might also want to be able to compile selected code with GCC 4.
24 >>
25 >>
26 >
27 >That's also on the TODO list.
28 >
29 >Peter
30 >
31 >
32 --
33 gentoo-science@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-science] lapack transition Peter Bienstman <pbienst@g.o>