On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Alexander Grayver <agrayver at gfz-potsdam.de > wrote:
> ** > On 27.02.2012 18:01, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> >> I'm afraid the sudden appearance of the blas dot for complex numbers >> problem is my fault. >> >> Traditionally since 199x we never used the complex dot product from >> blas because of the return complex type problem. VecDot_Seq() used #ifdef >> for complex and a simple loop. >> >> Since some blas norm suck I off-hand told Shri to use dot for norm and >> wasn't thinking the complex case. >> >> Since then, of course, the complex dot problem has been coming up. >> >> Maybe it is best to continue to never use complex blas dot and just >> change the VecNorm_ routines to use norm for complex and not dot.? Just >> throw away this silly problem and time sink? > > > Why is this such a problem? Just use PetscScalar for the BLASdot_() > return type and its fine. > > > For instance MKL's BLAS returns result for zdot in the first argument and > PETSc's BLASdot_() fails there. > Yes, there is already a configure test for that and code that fixes it. This is about interfaces. Matt > Matt > > >> >> Barry >> >> > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their > experiments lead. > -- Norbert Wiener > > > > -- > Regards, > Alexander > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120227/12213d0b/attachment.html>