[Numpy-discussion] Use OpenBLAS for the binary releases?
Wed Nov 21 04:49:35 CST 2012
That's already what we do (on.windows anyway). The binary installer
contains multiple arch binaries, and we pick the bewt one.
Le 21 nov. 2012 10:16, "Henry Gomersall" <firstname.lastname@example.org> a écrit :
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 00:44 +0000, David Cournapeau wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Henry Gomersall <email@example.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 20:35 +0100, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> > >> Is there a specific reason it *has* to happen at compile-time? I'd
> > >> think
> > >> one could do something like just shipping a lot of separate Python
> > >> extensions which are really just the same module linked with
> > >> different
> > >> versions of the library, and then
> > >>
> > >> if cpu_is_nehalem:
> > >> import blas_nehalem as blas
> > >> elif ...
> > >>
> > >> I'm asking a question about whether this would work in principle, I
> > >> realize it would perhaps not fit that well in the current NumPy
> > >> codebase.
> > >
> > > I was wondering this in the context of a previous discussion. Could
> > we
> > > not have an autotune module, that just runs a load of test scripts
> > and
> > > picks the best library to link against?
> > You can't easily relink at install time, so what you want is pick up
> > the best library at runtime. It is more or less impossible to do this
> > in a portable way (e.g. there is no solution that I know of on windows
> > < windows 2008, short of requiring to install some dlls with admin
> > privileges).
> I meant it as Dag did, at install time ;)
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion