| Re: [eigen] Indexes: why signed instead of unsigned? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Indexes: why signed instead of unsigned?
- From: Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:46:18 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=59FmtKhvuurMWcriXTWsOaADHtQ5bqpNes8ouJDVpas=; b=IG52qTRQufEvghWtTGxi6xnKPwU1Xj02C5D8vAHdzrs5LAlFzGU23doWL++upYVvgc ySfaqO350my7gCAILceWuzoT84x25IvFGuddr/jo5i8i1dXSe6zK2mkbV1c6B7W/Y3BY VqqQN11xs/EUMjt5lKwigJNDNAzuqrLnKpUx0=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=EwA/O8pLRn9U6qXlg1Z9bCHqLmwpCpSxTGL82vpzBkhHNvdrtb+FFBmXEoaz3zOV3N j1a4ELA98wfdlmq/yJ+OC6RHHekEfhbwp3TN74zK+ThEDM0Ye7cDfJSfSX4znFkEeK8L F/k1eUJrxQjl4/4in6rxaQaH92FZlvDbzj+h0=
On 11 May 2010 16:47, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I just had a diabolic idea, if we agree that bigger-than-2^31-support
> is not a top priority and will at most be used by relatively few
> people, then we can keep things unchanged for now, so keep 'int' in
> Eigen 3.0, and later on, when actual people actually need it (perhaps
> in eigen 3.45), add a non-default compile-time option
> EIGEN_USE_LONG_INDICES. Such an option would then break the ABI of
> Eigen classes, so it couldn't become default.
>
> Question - is BLAS/LAPACK using int or ptrdiff_t ?
>
> Benoit
As this move will break the ABI then why not implement it right on the
3.0 release instead of pushing it to a point release in the future?
Rui Maciel