From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4951 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2014 21:07:11 -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 4938 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2014 21:07:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: ipmx6.colorado.edu Received: from ipmx6.colorado.edu (HELO ipmx6.colorado.edu) (128.138.128.246) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 21:07:08 +0000 From: Patrick Alken Received: from bonanza.ngdc.noaa.gov ([140.172.179.41]) by smtp.colorado.edu with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Apr 2014 15:07:07 -0600 Message-ID: <533F1EFB.6060007@colorado.edu> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 21:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gsl-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GSL v2.0 discussion References: <533EE354.4050204@colorado.edu> <533EE585.40301@colorado.edu> <533F1BA7.5020003@colorado.edu> In-Reply-To: <533F1BA7.5020003@colorado.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-q2/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 On 04/04/2014 02:52 PM, Patrick Alken wrote: > I need to look into whether lapack2flame accepts LAPACKE calls or just > LAPACK calls (I don't see any reference to LAPACKE in the flame user > manual). In any case, lapack is usually installed by default on many > systems, whereas lapacke is probably not, so it may be worth supporting > lapack instead. Looking into this further it seems LAPACKE is included by default in recent lapack installations, which is very nice. I like how LAPACKE supports both row/column major matrix inputs - it seems this would make things much easier for us and we still might be able to use lapack2flame by linking with -llapacke but not -llapack?