[Numpy-discussion] Changing the distributed binary for numpy 1.0.4 for windows ?
Mon Dec 10 17:41:31 CST 2007
David M. Cooke wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:30 , Matthieu Brucher wrote:
>> 2007/12/10, Alexander Michael <firstname.lastname@example.org>: On Dec 10, 2007
>> 6:48 AM, David Cournapeau <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Several people reported problems with numpy 1.0.4 (See #627 and
>>> #628, but also other problems mentionned on the ML, which I cannot
>>> find). They were all solved, as far as I know, by a binary I
>>> (simply using mingw + netlib BLAS/LAPACK, no ATLAS). Maybe it
>> would be
>>> good to use those instead ? (I can recompile them if there is a
>>> thing to do to build them)
>> Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting removing ATLAS from
>> the Windows distribution? Wouldn't this make numpy very slow? I know
>> on RHEL5 I see a very large improvement between the basic BLAS/LAPACK
>> and ATLAS. Perhaps we should make an alternative Windows binary
>> available without ATLAS just for those having problems with ATLAS?
>> That's why David proposed the netlib version of BLAS/LAPACK and not
>> the default implementation in numpy.
>> I would agree with David ;)
> Our versions of BLAS/LAPACK are f2c'd versions of the netlib 3.0 BLAS/
> LAPACK (actually, of Debian's version of these -- they include several
> fixes that weren't upstream).
> So netlib's versions aren't going to be any faster, really. And
> netlib's BLAS is slow. Now, if there is a BLAS that's easier to
> compile than ATLAS on windows, that'd be improvement.
The current situation is untenable. I will gladly accept a slow BLAS for an
official binary that won't segfault anywhere. We can look for a faster BLAS later.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Numpy-discussion