Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-17 02:45:50

joel wrote:

> That's a given no ?

Stricly speaking, yes, but from a user's point of view I don't think so.
Please see my reply to Pavel.

>> * split algorithms from expressions, i.e., enable pluggable/customisable
>> back-ends into the expression templates
> Ultimately, the idea could be to have a way to fall back to BLAS or w/e
> exists ona given platform when specified.

I would say LAPACK is where the fun starts. Selecting algorithms based on
the lowest complexity would be good I guess. One could think of it as a
compile-time analytic/semantic preprocessor of an expression.

>> * achieve performance of FORTRAN-based programs (dominant in HPC)
> By handling low level parallelism construct, we can even out perform it.
> Add also multi-parallel architecture support. Next 10 years will eb full
> of dense integrated multicores everywhere.
> So better take time to be prepared for that.

I would say let's start where they (fortran-based code) are now, and improve
from there? I.e., start with plugged BLAS and LAPACK, replace with faster
C++ constructs?



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at