| Re: [eigen] two technical points: WithAlignedOperatorNew and std::complex casting |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] two technical points: WithAlignedOperatorNew and std::complex casting
- From: "Gael Guennebaud" <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:26:45 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=duLDFTvFrJyXxgMERoo7expvT7gZ8sbvzOC6qZ0wxV0=; b=HA0qRcwOr0ERQRurV1wJmZa2X48HWi4G2vBCgFqf5e1n529z1CXGLKR894bWWng7OQ +fGg08rfqf0wG+3RT2wvXy6DvetihkIhE7ZrNsRcL6a0N9oOOIa9NRmsMCdJdLYSw/Qw 4NMavnof+KRL2qbip/NOBz/+E/LQdc//QFsbE=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=MC/Zg/ODO4zufa8dakTm1QbC3WCAC1R/diiLyEKsa/6IxeLkRCFSSihHFt/DmolRre ajdaje4vuDp2u3bFnT1ggz/Id6LWTaUGvDrZBK9rgHpUkJFhg2FsjYhkfwPMpd0ziWP2 hdlKJ8WhPPl40VZajdbG/XuQEngrvpydNixG8=
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2008/12/31 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> yes, my idea was simply to add another enum (eg, since RowMajor==2, it
>> could be equal to 2) which would be valid only for the 4th template
>> parameter of Matrix, and then we test the presence of this bit to add
>> or not the AlignedBit flag in ei_compute_matrix_flag ....
>
> Good idea; the only thing I don't understand is "since RowMajor==2, it
> could be equal to 2", maybe you meant "it could be equal to anything
> but 2". If we start doing this then we need a static assert to ensure
> that the other flags aren't passed as 4th param of Matrix, and we need
> to make what we can to prevent confusion between 4th param of Matrix
> and the flags -- to begin with, this param should no longer be called
> "_Flags", maybe "Options" or "MatrixFlags" would be better.
oops I wanted to write "since RowMajor==1". also, currently the 4th
template param is explicitly called StorageOrder...
> Cheers,
> Benoit
>
> ---
>
>
---