From: Ian McCulloch (ianmcc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-10 08:49:03
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Toon Knapen wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 April 2002 08:51, you wrote:
> > P.S.: To give an impression, how the test integration works, I'll include a
> > sample implementation and a cutout of the modified CLAPACK's blaswrap.h.
> and I suppose gmm is implemented using ublas routines. So this also compares
> the speed of ublas with BLAS (I'v always been thinking in the other
> direction, that you made binding for BLAS to be able to call BLAS using ublas
What is the point of reimplementing BLAS? Do you really expect to end up
with something better than, say, the ATLAS implementation? What extra
functionality does ublas give?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk