James Bergstra
Wed Mar 29 01:57:00 GMT 2006

> >>> On one hand, I'm jealous that lapack has a fancy routine, and react 
> >>"let's
> >>> implement that for gsl too" and on the other hand, I think "why is gsl
> >>> re-implementing (what I believe is) a very standard library?"
> >>
> >>LAPACK is huge & tedious to install.  GSL is meant to be easy to use -
> >>a dependency on lapack would be a pain.
> >
> >How do you find LAPACK being a pain?  The public version of LAPACK has
> >been well tested and the design has been well thought out.  It has a
> >very comprehensive test suite also.
> Is this an either/or proposition?  Having its own lapack implementation
> just eliminates a dependency which I agree is desireable, and since the
> system-provided LAPACK often sucks as far as efficiency goes it also
> means that one CAN gradually start to tune up gsllapack. If the calls
> are the same, though, presumably one could link into an alternative
> library via suitable compile/link flags.  I thought this was the way
> things were being done already, actually, so one could e.g. use ATLAS

My hope was to encourage interchangeable implementations.

But it seems lapack routines cannot be used as drop-in replacements to implement
linalg_xxxx ones on account of the row-major, col-major business.

Is this true?

james bergstra

More information about the Gsl-discuss mailing list