From: Ian S. <ian...@st...> - 2006-06-14 14:55:06
|
I hadn't realised that f2c had never been updated to FORTRAN-90 - Bummer We could compile LAPACK 3e for a number of platforms using the compiler at g95.com and distribute binaries in v3p. If we also included the LAPACK 3e source, some people could do it themselves. Any one else could use the existing non-thread-safe version of LINPACK. Alternatively we could get the best version of CLAPCK we can find, and manually remove all the static variables ourselves. Either sounds like a lot of work. Ian. William A. Hoffman wrote: > At 03:07 PM 6/13/2006, Ian Scott wrote: >> William A. Hoffman wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how to make the netlib stuff thread safe. >>> This subject has been on the list before, but I thought there might be some new ideas >>> to fix the problem. >> I had thought that the best start would be to use a recent version of LAPACK which avoid some of the old fortran constructs (used by the LINPACK code we currently use) that translate to static variables. > This is an interesting page on the topic: > > http://www.cisst.org/cnetlib/cvstrac/cvstrac.cgi/wiki?p=CisstNetlibIntroduction > > It sounds like they did not find a solution. They are claiming that LAPACK is > not thread safe either. > > -Bill > |