Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-11 13:29:29
on 11.08.2009 at 21:03
Rutger ter Borg wrote :
>> speaking of such routines like finding eigenvalues or performing SVD i
>> agree with you
>> but nativly implemented blas seems to me better than mapping to
>> library calls
>> that's what i'm talking about
> I see. Even then, to outperform, say, ATLAS, Intel's MKL, or nVidia's
> CUBLAS, is extremely challenging. I think this will already hold for a
> serialized execution model. On top of that, when taking into account that a
> BLAS (or LAPACK for that matter) can be replaced by parallel and/or
> distributed execution models (threaded/PBLAS/ScalaPACK) I would say it's
> near impossible.
> Besides, what is nicer to be able to plug-in a new GPU and to be quickly
> able to use its power to full extend? Or, given the dominance and vendor
> support of the BLAS API, some other future piece of hardware?
if we lived in ideal world it'll be the very approach
however the first sentence on boost homepage states that
> Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.
i don't think blas implementations such that you say will be ever portable
(and i actually wonder how the threading was made portable??)
i focus on delivering a portable generic self-contained solution without
dependancies on third-party entities
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk