Thanks for the quick answer. We already have a wrapper class for BLAS/Lapack and it's currently being used for small problems as well as solving the - possibly huge - equation system.<div>We want to use PETSc to solve this problem in parallel and would have hoped to be able to simultaneously drop the wrapper. I guess a mixed approach would be perfect then?<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Jed Brown <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov">jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:35, <a href="mailto:markus.sons@gmail.com" target="_blank">markus.sons@gmail.com</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:markus.sons@gmail.com" target="_blank">markus.sons@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So, what do you recommend? Using PETSc for the large-scale computations and some simple Vec and Mat class for small, local stuff?</blockquote>
</div><br></div><div>Don't use PETSc Mat/Vec for very small local problems like the 3x3 or 4x4 matrices. If you are already addicted to templates and overloading, you might check out a library like Eigen which is competitive with BLAS/Lapack for some problems on some architectures.</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>