Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 08:02:36PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: >> Okay. I am giving it a try on arm right now. It looks like we should >> then also drop "--with-lapack"; the documentation states that this has only >> an effect when "--with-blas" is also given: >> https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-admin.html#LAPACK >> >> If compilation succeeds on arm now, I will see whether a reference to lapack >> is retained or not. > > Well, compilation succeeded! We will see whether this will also be the > case on mips. > > And there is still a reference to lapack, so I am not touching the > "--with-lapack" configure flag for now.
I would suggest to drop “--with-lapack”, too. (I haven’t found the time to try building without this flag just now.) The manual says: “However, the likely performance gains are thought to be small (and may be negative), and the default is not to search for a suitable LAPACK library, and this is definitely not recommended. [...] Please do bear in mind that using --with-lapack is ‘definitely not recommended’: it is provided only because it is necessary on some platforms and because some users want to experiment with claimed performance improvements. Reporting problems where it is used unnecessarily will simply irritate the R helpers.” I don’t remember why I added it in the first place, so I think it’s best to drop it, considering that the manual tells us only to do it if we know what we want to achieve by adding it. ~~ Ricardo