On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:30 , Matthieu Brucher wrote: > 2007/12/10, Alexander Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Dec 10, 2007 > 6:48 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Several people reported problems with numpy 1.0.4 (See #627 and > > #628, but also other problems mentionned on the ML, which I cannot > > find). They were all solved, as far as I know, by a binary I > produced > > (simply using mingw + netlib BLAS/LAPACK, no ATLAS). Maybe it > would be > > good to use those instead ? (I can recompile them if there is a > special > > thing to do to build them) > > Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting removing ATLAS from > the Windows distribution? Wouldn't this make numpy very slow? I know > on RHEL5 I see a very large improvement between the basic BLAS/LAPACK > and ATLAS. Perhaps we should make an alternative Windows binary > available without ATLAS just for those having problems with ATLAS? > That's why David proposed the netlib version of BLAS/LAPACK and not > the default implementation in numpy. > > I would agree with David ;)
Our versions of BLAS/LAPACK are f2c'd versions of the netlib 3.0 BLAS/ LAPACK (actually, of Debian's version of these -- they include several fixes that weren't upstream). So netlib's versions aren't going to be any faster, really. And netlib's BLAS is slow. Now, if there is a BLAS that's easier to compile than ATLAS on windows, that'd be improvement. -- |>|\/|< /------------------------------------------------------------------\ |David M. Cooke http://arbutus.physics.mcmaster.ca/dmc/ |[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
