This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: libflame version 4.0 announced
At Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:37:31 -0700,
Gerard Jungman wrote:
> (2) The LAPACK-like coverage seems reasonable. But I am not a good
> judge of this. How much LAPACK functionality is covered in
> this latest release? Obviously all the banded-matrix stuff
> is out, since libflame does nothing with banded matrices.
> But how complete is it regarding core functionality?
The main omissions currently are eigenvalues and SVD.
However, since everything in FLAME is derived automatically from a
high-level description it should be easier for them to add new
algorithms in the long run.
The problems below are all fixable I am sure.
> (4) According to the manual, libflame calls abort() when it encounters
> a problem. As I have discussed before, this is brain-damaged. It
> makes it hard for other library developers (us) to integrate
> their thing into an existing error-handling system. They seem
> to admit it is a problem, but it's probably a low priority
> for them. How can we integrate this?
>
> (5) There are many configuration/build options. Is it feasible to
> build and deploy several different versions (with and without
> SuperMatrix, etc), from which a selection can be made at link
> time, requiring no source-level changes in client code?
> (d) There are several places where the API assumes C stdio. It looks
> like some of these uses are internal (like FLA_Print_message
> being used for error messages). This is brain-damaged, since
> it makes it harder to integrate into other environments
> (i.e. C++) where C stdio is not appropriate. It's ok to
> have such "convenience" functions in the API, but they
> should not be used internally.
>
> (e) The autotools build looks somewhat annoying. I'm really
> tired of autotools. Obviously, the same is true of GSL.