[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Requesting review of new interchangeable BLAS components
Am Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:06:48 -0500
schrieb Jason Bacon <outpaddling%yahoo.com@localhost>:
> 1. Add mk/blas.buildlink3.mk from wip/mk.
1a. Add wip/openblas, wip-openblas_openmp, and wip/openblas_pthread.
a) They don't hurt and are only installed if explcitly
requested (also no conflict with math/blas, math/lapack).
b) Otherwise, we'd need to modify blas.buildlink3.mk to remove
them as options to avoid depending on wip packages.
I think it's less work overall to add the OpenBLAS packages early on.
As nothing relies on them yet except via blas.buildlink3.mk. As long as
we keep netlib as default choice, nothing can break.
> 2. Upgrade math/blas and math/lapack, the current Netlib packages, from wip
> 3. Revbump all dependent packages and modify their .includes to use
> mk/blas.buildlink3.mk instead of math/blas/buildlink3.mk or
This is the interesting step where things shall be tested … bulk builds
> So at this time, we only need immediate review of
> wip/mk/blas.buildlink3.mk, wip/blas, and wip/lapack.
Do you think it is much to ask to also move over OpenBLAS? As nothing
is depending on it yet, I don't see so much burden of review.
> After completing these commits and verifying that everything is in
> order, we will add the new packages wip/cblas, wip/lapacke,
These are indeed new and needed as dependencies for other wip pacakges
or patches for existing packages. The next step is integrating a number
of patches to make more use of BLAS and CBLAS functionality in
packages. These can trickle in between freezes …
Dr. Thomas Orgis
HPC @ Universität Hamburg
Main Index |
Thread Index |