Upcoming revision of the BLAS standard
Hi NumPy and SciPy developers, Apparently there is some work afoot to update the BLAS standard, with a working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DY4ImZT1coqri2382GusXgBTTTVdBDvtD5I14QHp... This seems like something where we might want to get involved in, so that the new standard works for us, and James Demmel (the first author on that proposal and a professor here at Berkeley) suggested they'd be interested to hear our thoughts. I'm not sure exactly what the process is here -- apparently there have been some workshops, and there was going to be a BoF today at Supercomputing, but I don't know what the schedule is or how they'll be making decisions. It's possible for anyone interested to click on that google doc above and make "suggestions", but it seems like maybe it would be useful for the NumPy/SciPy teams to come up with some sort of shared document on what we want? I'm really, really not the biggest linear algebra expert on these lists, so I'm hoping those with more experience will jump in, but to get started here are some initial ideas for things we might want to ask for: - Support for arbitrary strided memory layout - Replacing xerbla with proper error codes (already in that proposal) - There's some discussion about NaN handling where I think we might have opinions. (Am I remember right that currently we have to check for NaNs ourselves all the time because there are libraries that blow up if we don't, and we don't know which ones those are?) - Where the spec ends up giving implementors flexibility, some way to detect at compile time what options they chose. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
Hi NumPy and SciPy developers,
Apparently there is some work afoot to update the BLAS standard, with a working document here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DY4ImZT1coqri2382GusXgBTTTVdB DvtD5I14QHp9OE/edit
This seems like something where we might want to get involved in, so that the new standard works for us, and James Demmel (the first author on that proposal and a professor here at Berkeley) suggested they'd be interested to hear our thoughts.
I'm not sure exactly what the process is here -- apparently there have been some workshops, and there was going to be a BoF today at Supercomputing, but I don't know what the schedule is or how they'll be making decisions. It's possible for anyone interested to click on that google doc above and make "suggestions", but it seems like maybe it would be useful for the NumPy/SciPy teams to come up with some sort of shared document on what we want?
I'm really, really not the biggest linear algebra expert on these lists, so I'm hoping those with more experience will jump in, but to get started here are some initial ideas for things we might want to ask for:
- Support for arbitrary strided memory layout - Replacing xerbla with proper error codes (already in that proposal) - There's some discussion about NaN handling where I think we might have opinions. (Am I remember right that currently we have to check for NaNs ourselves all the time because there are libraries that blow up if we don't, and we don't know which ones those are?) - Where the spec ends up giving implementors flexibility, some way to detect at compile time what options they chose.
Somewhat unrelated, but it would be nice to have 64 bit integers. That is already possible with compiler flags, but it would help if there was an easy way to tell what the compiled library was using. Chuck
participants (2)
-
Charles R Harris -
Nathaniel Smith