Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Which confirms the wisdom of our advice not to use --with-lapack > unless you have to (a few systems do). (Quote from the R-admin manual > > this is definitely *not* recommended > > . Perhaps this needs to say `use at your own risk and do not report > problems with it'!) > > There are far too many rogue LAPACK builds out there in distros.
Right, and I did of course know about the warning and the reason for it. I just thought that when yet another distro saw fit to put a liblapack out, the least we could do was to test it... > BTW, I don't understand how a Linux distro can supply ATLAS tuned to > my CPU/FPU. Dr Goto has had about ten versions of his optimized BLAS > covering just a small subset of i686 CPUs. So although a distro's > ATLAS may be better than a generic BLAS, it seems that it is likely to > be suboptimal, and perhaps disastrous (I've seen that with mobile > Pentium chips using ATLAS tuned on desktop machines). So the > recommendation must remain to tune ATLAS on your specific hardware. I don't think an RPM is restricted to contain only one version of the binaries, so in principle, the post-installer could adapt the installed version to your hardware, if it could narrow the choice down to a dozen versions or so. It's not easy though, since not only the CPU/FPU types factor in, but also cache sizes and memory speeds. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
