4 ms·
You're probably confusing ARPACK with BLAS / LAPACK. Pure julia ARPACK already exists, e.g. https://github.com/haampie/ArnoldiMethod.jl/ https://github.com/haa
by stabbles 6y ago
You're probably confusing ARPACK with BLAS / LAPACK.
Pure julia ARPACK already exists, e.g. https://github.com/haampie/ArnoldiMethod.jl/ https://github.com/haampie/ArnoldiMethod.jl/.
A competive BLAS-gemm is implemented here https://github.com/YingboMa/MaBLAS.jl/blob/master/src/gemm.jl https://github.com/YingboMa/MaBLAS.jl/blob/master/src/gemm.j... (single-threaded).
A LAPACK-like library could be https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/GenericLinearAlgebra.jl https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/GenericLinearAlgebra.j...
- etik 6y agoI was mostly referring to the parent comment's suggestion that low level numerical libraries wouldn't benefit from a pure Julia implementation, specifically to the statement that it was still better to write optimized C/FORTRAN and call from Julia. Indeed, MaBLAS, which you linked, is built on top of LoopVectorization.jl. I don't know how well ArnoldiMethod.jl compares with ARPACK, but if there is a gap my suggestion is simply that these recent developments might help bridge it :)
- stabbles 6y agoFWIW, MaBLAS currently does not depend on LoopVectorization.jl, the code to generate kernels is all handwritten.