Re: [eigen] (vec1*vec2.transpose())*vec3 on 2.0.5/6 |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] (vec1*vec2.transpose())*vec3 on 2.0.5/6
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:31:35 -0400
- 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=gVdK56w4hcaD4T+Niq8C1e6ATiCTC3Y09V6QI1KTZfM=; b=tYVItO98XBnQym3c3S+dd1QgJoZe0as/RGRL5m4SqMqETvOElYtsET3Kut/94J/CsG VbTOijy44LK6NCmiMzW5HmkdPN7SmRRviDHGLZfi7k7YR6zI+CMKEebY1E3XHAwRcTL3 i3wfgTsi2XlPGNp0EoTCXZ7rxVGXTByMB9FJg=
- 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=fYDSM+ucap/CxLQRGyYisGtwIl7v1K1z9Lw3WUX8/v3O1d56v64KLev/lpDyuaYvT5 PQqGR/ENUeFKAE+etxpn8yqEg1B6XhOeLljxd9uj05k5vhrgxuwbRDpBm1hyAWqvPRdb BAjhocSJDoTMvsDCvtfPpmvKlUFC3BXDngc+U=
2009/9/29 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2009/9/29 Rhys Ulerich <rhys.ulerich@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> On 2.0.5 and 2.0.6 I've noticed that
>>>> (vec1*vec2.transpose())*vec3
>>>> errors out at compile time
>>
>>> It's definitely not legit, you found a bug, let me investigate it...
>>
>> When you're investigating, would you please also check that it behaves
>> correctly for
>> (vec1*vec1.transpose())*vec2
>> where the outer product is vec1 against itself? That's the original
>> use case where I found the problem. The GNU 4.3.1 and Intel 10.1
>> compilers both complained in a similar way.
>
> Here your example indeed triggers a compilation error with the
> development branch;
> but it compiles and runs normally with the 2.0 branch, with 2.0.5, and
> with 2.0.6. (And yes, I uncommented the nasty line).
>
> I tried with GCC 4.4 and GCC 4.1.
>
> Can you show me the compilation errors that you get?
This is now fixed in the devel branch.
Again, I couldn't reproduce any problem with the 2.0 branch.
So for now, that's all I can do.
Benoit