Re: [eigen] conservative resize ... |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] conservative resize ...
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:13:54 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hWnDKZUsMRVEeDtLBXwZcOQn3n5BABJ1veNwdikD3Eo=; b=Ajt0VWz9em0K+dQJi9heiKH5YDbVCVpcBB0ZlaXO0onSJvpEnaBPc5dFuG9OsJHNmg q9kSg79ZrEk002k3nx25sNFQNnu8Vo3o9hGIO+LiToamMI8w3yPJMU3q/hUUG/vSyoxK XlaTN656ozoX91f7j/9AtBFSckpox7zNq7ae0=
- 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=g57Kjde2Q8aelsJgfFzURX9ACcM4d6wE49Gxaal+7fmwNNlwRkOvOFj5Ghx/F+b2Qt 8Tz3mFqPGkFIDKHy8V1vEZgWqQHr6MHVDG8Y8kGM9PCuQLkyTiHhXJ4ONt2v+98Q38pQ 9jNmlXfq2yb9xP7uhnnIXn7r33+ioMf9FU3Rk=
hi,
what about the following:
- we keep only the two simple conservativeResize() overloads taking
only size arguments
- we add one template overload:
template<typename OtherDerived>
void conservativeResize(const MatrixBase<OtherDerived>& other);
resizing *this to match the sizes of other, and filling the extended
parts from the respective parts of other. Typical use cases:
Mat m;
// ...
// extend with 0 (similar to the current m.conservativeResize(r, c, true))
m.conservativeResize(Mat::Zero(r,c));
// extend with x:
m.conservativeResize(Mat::Constant(r, c, x));
// and some more complex examples:
m.conservativeResize(Mat::Identity(r,c));
m.conservativeResize(Mat::Random(r,c));
The drawback is that it makes the "extend with zeros" a bit more verbose.
Alos, perhaps conservativeResize() is not a very good name for this
overload, but what do you think about this idea ?
cheers,
gael.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Hauke Heibel<hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Márton Danóczy<marton78@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> You're right, initializing a matrix after resizing should suffice, if
>> it is not slower than doing both in one step.
>
> It is possible and would probably be even faster - if done correctly.
> I am just saying this because you would need to take care of
> initializing only those parts of the matrix which are yet
> uninitialized. At the moment, when pre-initializing with zeros, the
> parts of the old and resized matrices that overlap are accessed twice.
> Once for initializing with zeros and a second time to copy the old
> values.
>
> @Benoit, ExtendByZero is fine. I am just wondering, was there a
> particular reason for making NoChange_t a struct? Should we follow the
> same strategy to ExtendByZero?
>
> - Hauke
>
>
>