From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E6s8E-00059H-S2 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:53:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7LFp7A7000749; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:51:07 GMT Received: from adicia.telenet-ops.be (adicia.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.56]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7LFp7dV016076 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:51:07 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 85D0F44292 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:51:39 +0200 (MEST) Received: from pbienst.dyndns.org (d51A54866.access.telenet.be [81.165.72.102]) by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A23441EF for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:51:39 +0200 (MEST) From: Peter Bienstman To: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-science] lapack transition Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:51:36 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <200508211343.48047.pbienst@gentoo.org> <43089EBD.3070400@cesmail.net> In-Reply-To: <43089EBD.3070400@cesmail.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-science@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart25561870.XA4fkgdZo8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200508211751.38733.pbienst@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: e4327692-04b7-4d31-bf4e-bde97c3d137d X-Archives-Hash: 3d4cb6be3bc520d62d7b4f147fe65cf1 --nextPart25561870.XA4fkgdZo8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 21 August 2005 17:33, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > I just returned to this list -- what is the "new infrastructure" we are > "preparing for"? The ability to switch between different lapack implementations (reference,= =20 ATLAS, later perhaps MKL) at run time. > Could we get a "testing/unstable" Atlas in Portage? Right now, they are > at 3.7.10, and I only see a 3.7.10 for blas-atlas, not for atlas itself > or lapack-atlas. I think the x86-64 users will want 3.7.10 across the > board, and might also want to be able to compile selected code with GCC 4. That's also on the TODO list. Peter --nextPart25561870.XA4fkgdZo8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAQwijCjBK5bY6aANxAQIqlgQAgIexLyZJ2kwh+nmyLgm84U93+Xi2F6bH opF06qLSZYbGxqs8GTuiVSFd+M3HNvnn/goHCMNQMNzdsspJFDz09NM2jNXy8aJ0 KyLGDmKo6wMAuVdXmudBQWvnIxo1nqAvrUYTzBlWVH59xbXfLVpG5LgwnGiu0qx4 7Yvmsy34BEc= =zRlP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart25561870.XA4fkgdZo8-- -- gentoo-science@gentoo.org mailing list