[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the latest LAPACK
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: the latest LAPACK |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:44:19 -0500 (CDT) |
On 22-Jun-1999, Ross A. Lippert <address@hidden> wrote:
| It is LAPACK barfing.
Unless Octave is using LAPACK incorrectly, I'd have to say that the
bug is definitely in LAPACK, not Octave.
| However, I'd like you to consider this LAPACK
| bug as one reason why an update to LAPACK 3.0 might benefit octave,
I agree. Once it is released, I have no problem with upgrading. I
did that shortly after LAPACK 2.0 was released. Yours was the first
message that I have seen about any new version of LAPACK.
| bc at the user level it is octave which barfs.
But I don't think it is fair to blame Octave. First, I don't remember
anyone reporting a problem or suggesting a way that Octave could work
around the bug in LAPACK. If Octave misbehaved because of a bug in
the C library, would you say that Octave was `barfing'? Or would you
say, `the bug is in the C library; fix it and the problem will go away'?
| I will try out your svd example once I have succeeded in building
| LAPACK 3.0. I just got it.
| I pointed out a bug in LAPACK last
| year and got a good response and a patch, but that was after I had
| traced the bug to the few lines of fortran code in LAPACK which were
| causing the problem.
Well, I don't have time for that. If I did, I could probably just fix
the problem myself.
How often do I see much more than "it's broke! fix it!"?
jwe