From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: OpenBLAS and performance
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:46:26 +0100
Message-ID: <873744xc4d.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <20171219104956.GB806@thebird.nl>
	<87tvwl7h4w.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk>
	<87h8sl78vp.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk>
	<20171220172215.GA7926@thebird.nl> <87d139xo3v.fsf@elephly.net>
	<87h8sk3vin.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54150)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1eS7Xc-0003qH-BO
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:34:09 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1eS7XY-0006DV-I2
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:34:08 -0500
Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21133)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1eS7XY-0006C6-AN
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:34:04 -0500
In-reply-to: <87h8sk3vin.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org


Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> writes:

> Another point about the OB package is that it excludes LAPACK for some
> reason that doesn't seem to be recorded.  I think that should be
> included, partly for convenience, and partly because it optimizes some
> of LAPACK.

That was me, I think.  I did this because I assumed that if users want
LAPACK they=E2=80=99d just install the lapack package.  If this turns out t=
o be
a misguided idea because the OB LAPACK differs then I=E2=80=99m fine with
enabling LAPACK in the OB package.=20

(I=E2=80=99m not very knowlegdeable about all of this.  I just happened to
package OpenBLAS first.)

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net