From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23078 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2014 17:41:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23067 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2014 17:41:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pb0-f43.google.com Received: from mail-pb0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-pb0-f43.google.com) (209.85.160.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:41:08 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id um1so3774509pbc.2 for ; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:41:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FQ4rCzmJwaCmpc5IMD1R8LaIILnNKALi2xW2HjZQRG8=; b=GRNjGaXO+0Kvq6Y+TAyKIT784VkAX9ph92XBwc0SX2rUPE0aT0WyhGtexkD7o/j5vX NBZ+nziZ3+PFHsMcVsJTPsEth/DTkyIaGV/GZxwK4GXtgqXQjfq38BcUKRifQVTzaVgh vyAcsd1TiaHgLG2dEmNxYgxHvyd5dbFRs+BdVWDFLoxA8ho03VTlBLIlmcYe71inXxg4 9sxZ4spR6CLv3nf4EwzOMbeVMr9kBcbgjyV9DdewfOFyEeJUquKLVWtwPz7jPqHuA2ob iphDo2FFuWBF981uKfncQL0L3mFUMIjuMHVSK+Ea1osWo7z+llrgNSuiB8/AD9TNPm6k yErg== X-Received: by 10.68.164.193 with SMTP id ys1mr16218093pbb.139.1396633267037; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-128-189-73-105.ubcsecure.wireless.ubc.ca (dhcp-128-189-73-105.ubcsecure.wireless.ubc.ca. [128.189.73.105]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sm5sm43548589pab.19.2014.04.04.10.41.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) Subject: Re: GSL v2.0 discussion From: =?windows-1252?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Caron?= In-Reply-To: <533EE585.40301@colorado.edu> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:41:00 -0000 Cc: "gsl-discuss@sourceware.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <30FB3FFE-22DD-4876-946F-55C3441C33B9@phas.ubc.ca> References: <533EE354.4050204@colorado.edu> <533EE585.40301@colorado.edu> To: Patrick Alken X-SW-Source: 2014-q2/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 > 1. Should we try to add lapack/flame interfaces for the 2.0 release or wa= it until 3.0?=20 Unless an individual specifically volunteers for this job, we should not de= lay. > 2. Is it better to select gsllinalg/lapack/flame at compile time or link = time? Selecting at compile time sounds more reasonable. If a user really needs t= o use both LA libs with GSL, they should be advanced enough to be able to i= nstall parallel versions of GSL.=20=20 > 4. What should we do about error handling in libflame? Just accept the ab= ort() behavior? File a bug report with libflame? > 5. Is there a strong preference for doing wrappers for both lapack and fl= ame? Should we only interface to lapack, due to the difficulties with flame= (global state, abort() error handling)? Should we only interface to flame = due to its more modern design? If only one of the libs was an option, I would vote for LAPACK, since it=92= s much more commonly used & well-known.=20=20 Jean-Fran=E7ois