Re: [eigen] slides of my talk

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

well if you have for instance:

matrix44 data[a lot];
for each mat in data do

I expect a JIT to optimize foo for 4x4 matrices. but perhaps I'm
expecting too much !

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2009/1/26 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The point is that even if they optimize some common operations for
>>> small fixed sizes they can only do it for a small fixed number of
>>> these.
>> actually if they have a good JIT, they only have the overhead of the
>> parsing and compilation and then the algorithm would be as fast as
>> Eigen !
> For that, they need not only a good JIT, they need their whole matrix
> framework to support fixed size like Eigen does (as opposed to dynamic
> size). This isn't going to be easy for them as the Matlab syntax
> doesn't let the user specify which sizes are fixed. So I guess that it
> would still be possible for Matlab to handle literals as fixed values,
> but that wouldn't work if the user makes a function taking a matrix as
> parameter...

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+