On 2020-05-13 11:44 -0700, Jeff Newmiller wrote: > Depending on reproducibility in the least > significant bits of floating point > calculations is a bad practice. Just > because you decide based on this one > example that one implementation of BLAS is > better than another does not mean that will > be true for all specific examples. IMO you > are drawing conclusions on data that is > effectively random and should change your > definition of "sufficient to the task".
Dear Jeff, Right, so I really would have wanted OpenBLAS to be as reproducible as regular BLAS in this one random example, but my hands remains tied on this since I do not know anything about BLAS ... More interestingly, could you dream up any idea as to what might cause this difference? Best, Rasmus ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
