On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > This doesn't really matter too much imho, we have to support Accelerate >> > either way. >> > > do we? -- so if we go OpenBlas, and someone want to do a simple build from > source, what happens? Do they get accelerate? > Indeed, unless they go through the effort of downloading a separate BLAS and LAPACK, and figuring out how to make that visible to numpy.distutils. Very few users will do that. > or would we ship OpenBlas source itself? > Definitely don't want to do that. > or would they need to install OpenBlas some other way? > Yes, or MKL, or ATLAS, or BLIS. We have support for all these, and that's a good thing. Making a uniform choice for our official binaries on various OSes doesn't reduce the need or effort for supporting those other options. > > >> >> Faster to fix bugs with good support from main developer. No >> >> >> multiprocessing crashes for Python 2.7. >> > > this seems to be the compelling one. > > How does the performance compare? > For most routines performance seems to be comparable, and both are much better than ATLAS. When there's a significant difference, I have the impression that OpenBLAS is more often the slower one (example: https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/533). Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
