[SciPy-dev] Do we care about the LAPACK C interface?
Fri Nov 7 21:42:46 CST 2008
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 17:27, Travis E. Oliphant <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm sitting here in a BOF with Clint Whaley (the author of ATLAS). He
>> is looking for information about people that care about the C interface
>> to LAPACK. Do we care?
>> I'm not clear on that. Don't we just use the FORTRAN interfaces to ATLAS?
>> If I hear from you soon, I can give Clint the information before I leave
>> the BOF.
> Query: Are you talking about just the C interface to LAPACK or the C
> interface to the BLAS, too? I definitely want to keep the BLAS C
I agree cblas is more interesting than clapack. In theory, we could
wrap more cblas into numpy, without the need of any fortran compiler.
There is also technical difference between clapack and cblas: clapack
interface is a fortran-like interfance (everything passed by
reference, same name than lapack), contrary to cblas which is more C.
This makes clapack quite confusing, actually, and not always even
usable at the same time as LAPACK (because of name collision).
> It would be nice if there were a C interface to the entire
> LAPACK, but I don't think that ATLAS (or anyone else) provides that
I am not 100 % positive, but I think the accelerate framework offers
a clapack interface. AMD, too, may offer a clapack interface. It is
not always obvious whereas a given interface is lapack or clapack
(since the names are the same).
More information about the Scipy-dev