David M. Cooke wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:30 , Matthieu Brucher 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
(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
2007/12/10, Alexander Michael <lxander.m@gmail.com>: On Dec 10, 2007 6:48 AM, David Cournapeau <david@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote: produced 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.
The current situation is untenable. I will gladly accept a slow BLAS for an official binary that won't segfault anywhere. We can look for a faster BLAS later. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco