| Re: [eigen] patch for tridiagonal matrices in eigen |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] patch for tridiagonal matrices in eigen
- From: "Benoit Jacob" <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:42:32 -0500
- 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=GiRP+WscW8fkmTCwMc3l8WcGpZ7jrkLohlkITZz++J0=; b=s3am0ScAI2jUWw06wWF1/ryxWoS+IaUzOEh3hOMu2acncEE0Umq25tTOyxxVFjB+8s oq3ASfGzu+XIovhMaOfwRuwN/AzMhVGUpCufWui1iECo+py9V2JELNJZiSRltDZ2M+a1 PT26WtbqbU+yu4mV1u7+nf8RgI5U0ZsxWw2TY=
- 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=Ds6B/Ip2H7uNktQHWpQgwA0V2vdIrz5XuTOLMZF7HMPt3oS8Q/aRMMhZukrL3bphP6 D+JdjRue+0NWg3L+TAZDFtv41pCTfdCg6yNi33k7K8VNzauhxz8wteOKtuNi1eTA8A2a s1oUqUUNRtRmzclrPZPHM3BO38fHF+tnuRrtk=
This is template parameters, so we want them to be plain old ints.
Cheers,
Benoit
2008/12/19 Kenneth Riddile <kfriddile@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Ya, using exclusive flags there will definitely scale better than the current design. Another option that also improves scalability might be to use a std::bitset.
>
> -Kenny Riddile
>
>
> --- On Fri, 12/19/08, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [eigen] patch for tridiagonal matrices in eigen
>> To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 12:25 PM
>> 2008/12/19 Mauro Iazzi <mauro.iazzi@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > I do not understand properly the meaning of these
>> flags. For example
>> > part needs assumes some to be exclusive but not others
>> (i.e.
>> > UpperTriangular is not UpperHessenberg, but
>> StrictlyUpper is
>> > UpperTridiagonal...). If part() checked using ==
>> instead of & I think
>> > it would be safe to use the Flags to mark the type of
>> the matrix (it
>> > already does in some points).
>>
>> Hm, good remark.
>> It seems that the current design, whcih worked quite well
>> do far, does
>> not scale very well.
>> Maybe indeed it's time to start using exclusive flags
>> and == instead of &.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Benoit
>>
>> ---
>
> ---
>
>
---