Brad Douglas wrote: > > I did not hear any response to my question of whether to continue > using BLAS/LAPACK. > > This uncertainty has been particularly hard on me, being unable to > complete some work waiting for an answer one way or the other and not > wanting to implement my own version if not needed. > > Currently, there is no code in the tree that makes use of either > library other than my own. In fact, others have implemented their own > versions.
If having it there is not hurting anything, I'd say leave it as-is. It is less work to maintain the configure scripts than it is to stay current with the latest advancements in the library. ie 5 years from now we'd have an unmaintained stale copy distributed with our source. BLAS/LAPACK are in common use elsewhere, so it's not like a user would have to spend time hunting down and compiling obscure software to use it. Take pride in being the first to use it, we've been waiting a while for someone to. :) > What I propose is moving the matrix code from v.generalize (in > particular, matrix_inverse() ) to lib/gmath and simplifying the > existing MATRIX structure. regardless of BLAS/LAPACK staying or going, consolidation, consistency, and anything else that makes the code easier to maintain is obviously a good thing. (but no idea about that specific code) Hamish _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
