Page 1 of 1

Is CLAPACK 3.2.1 really thread safe?

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:15 pm
by chengiz
On http://www.netlib.org/clapack/, CLAPACK 3.2.1 is mentioned to be threadsafe.
However, looking at the code, dlamch.c is definitely not thread safe, and dlaln2.c does not appear to be thread safe.
Also, dlacon.c and (in CBLAS) drotmg.c do not appear to be thread safe, but they seem to be unused.
Am I missing something? Thank you.

Re: Is CLAPACK 3.2.1 really thread safe?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:06 am
by admin
Now we advice to use LAPACK/LAPACKE combination instead of CLAPACK.
To get those library, just download LAPACK 3.4.0 at http://netlib.org/lapack/
Those will be thread safe for sure.
Julie

Re: Is CLAPACK 3.2.1 really thread safe?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:28 pm
by chengiz
Unfortunately we cant do that because we dont always have fortran compilers.

Re: Is CLAPACK 3.2.1 really thread safe?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:38 pm
by utflame
You may want to try libflame. It does not require Fortran and is comparable to LAPACK (when linked to the right BLAS library). It is also thread safe.

(A few years ago, we found a lot of problems with thread safety in LAPACK, particularly in routines related to the application of Householder transformations. This was fixed by properly labeling parameters as being INPUT/OUTPUT, but that is a bit tricky and only identifies the routines as not being thread safe. It is possible that more recently this was fixed further. I have not checked recently.)

Check http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/flame/ to see if it has the functionality you need. Let us know if you need help.

Robert

Re: Is CLAPACK 3.2.1 really thread safe?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:21 pm
by chengiz
@utflame

Thanks, but your software is GPL which I cannot use.