xLARTG vs LAWN 148 discrepancy for F=0 and (G .ne. 0)

Post here if you have a question about LAPACK or ScaLAPACK algorithm or data format

xLARTG vs LAWN 148 discrepancy for F=0 and (G .ne. 0)

Postby jip » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:54 pm

When F=0 and (G .ne. 0), the LAWN 148 proposes to set CS=0 and SN=sign(conj(G)) (Algorithm 1 on page 5). It differs from implementation in SLARTG and DLARTG which both are set CS=0 and SN=1 .

Just curious, is there any paper which substantiate LAPACK's choice in this case? Or the reason is the phrase in the source code: "without doing any floating point operations (saves work in SBDSQR when there are zeros on the diagonal)"? But what about continuity in this case? More common question is, how much LAWNs are mandatory for LAPACK development.
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:35 pm
Location: Vladivostok, Russia

Return to Algorithm / Data

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests