Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!udel!nigel.ee.udel.edu!mccalpin From: mccalpin@perelandra.cms.udel.edu (John D. McCalpin) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: Approximate MFLOPS Message-ID: Date: 26 Nov 90 20:14:42 GMT References: <1131@cnw01.storesys.coles.oz.au> <6760@uceng.UC.EDU> <1990Nov26.191342.7610@odin.corp.sgi.com> Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu Organization: College of Marine Studies, U. Del. Lines: 24 Nntp-Posting-Host: perelandra.cms.udel.edu In-reply-to: schreiber@schreiber.asd.sgi.com's message of 26 Nov 90 19:13:42 GMT >>>>> On 26 Nov 90 19:13:42 GMT, schreiber@schreiber.asd.sgi.com (Olivier Schreiber) said: Olivier> In mccalpin@perelandra.cms.udel.edu (John D. McCalpin) writes: >[...] It is only "fairly" exact since the vendor is >allowed to re-write the BLAS-1 (Basic Linear Algebra Subroutines) >however s/he wants in order to improve performance. [....] Olivier> Reading the Dongarra CS-89-85 report, my understanding is that Olivier> for the LINPACK 100x100 test, one is not allowed to modify the Olivier> BLAS-1 Basic Linear Algebra Subroutines either as they are Olivier> contained in the source code obtained from netlib. Dongarra certainly seemed to have intended that the vendors produce optimized BLAS for their machines. The only "requirement" seemed to me to be that the source/type of the BLAS be disclosed. In the early days, the report contained separate sections for the "All Fortran" cases and the "Coded BLAS" cases. I do not believe that this distinction is maintained in the current (and much abbreviated) report. -- John D. McCalpin mccalpin@perelandra.cms.udel.edu Assistant Professor mccalpin@brahms.udel.edu College of Marine Studies, U. Del. J.MCCALPIN/OMNET