Date: 2001-11-13 17:23:33
--- In boost_at_y..., Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_s...> wrote:
> walter_at_g... wrote:
> > --- In boost_at_y..., Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_s...> wrote:
> > ublas is somewhat scattered in the CVS (branch
> > You'll find the odds at:
> but e.g. the includes in the header of test1 refer to "../config.h"
> which seems incompatible with the directory structure you use in
> IMO : There is no subdirectory in the directory where config.h is
> located ? (I figure you use some other file-structure layout to
> the tests?).
That's right. We've never changed our first layout.
> Anyway, I'm very interested in using uBlas and could also produce
> Jamfiles if you like to build the tests automatically.
That would be very fine.
> (I would suggest
> moving the ublas on the main branch in that case however as
> synchronising with the latest Jam developments might be difficult)
I don't know what impact this might have.
> >>And what is the current status of ublas ?
> > Rather advanced, w.r.t. Fortran BLAS functionality, I believe ;-
> > are still writing docs and try to tune the kernels...
> What is the relation to MTL3.0 development in Boost ?
ublas is our contribution to the delevopment of boost.matrix.
> >>Do you use Blas internally for
> >>performance reasons (I checked but could no see any calls to the
> >> blas.h header)
> > Nope.The template functions in blas.h are used to demonstrate how
> > emulate Fortran BLAS (see test2). However, if one needs platform
> > specific tuned BLAS kernels, one could try to partially
> > these.
> I would like to look at making specialisations for using Blas
> (too have the most performant alternative as long as the C++
> implementation is at par with Blas) if it does not collide with the
> roadmap you have in mind.
That would be an interesting chance to get more performance numbers.
BTW, which BLAS kernel do you intend to use?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk