| Re: [eigen] ILU decomposition |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] ILU decomposition
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:56:50 +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=/PDrbpw2K7z7tN1u+ghXv/G3D/CSObJdcU1Z0FPrkGU=; b=EZ5HUK3nHdH0u+pOemVU+rXLXdUC25CKNT4nAsLpipvlN2N2w2fdpYMd2xSgVi3XyU cC56AZfedWWwt/SlgYPFiTWkoICYokRIcXKkA/AvTCx02+w6A7ktjCoxS77Cuz+sat+U D7jmJ6Nlj2EoZ/fAlKPHgSa3I9zX5XxkE8ZKU=
- 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=NLKYlmuPm5zFcOVNJrO2bCN86jGIDpf83rr6fpqQWdq0wnRhQsyEmq8KuaPv2z4hZt qOmhOFpYTcjcfklrg8+MUur7+D2YbwYH3UBIHkQJ/y9bo5X2aLBPFoOzUw2DKaL4u/ge 3Lc/C9ZSTNvMFw+tsLqHnfHH15wUaKZkXfTP8=
hi,
thanks for your patch !, and sorry for the long delay.
I've just applied it.
One (naive) question: why did you commented the line 399:
m_sluEqued = 'B';
I don't remember its purpose, so that's why I'm asking.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Peter Román<peterrom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I also looked into adding additional inputs for ILU specific option to
> the SparseLU class, but it seems no two available ILU packages are the
> same, so it gets messy.
yes, but if some low level options which are specific to a given
backend are quite important, then it is fine to add specific functions
to control them.
> I would suggest adding a flag for whether to use the modified ILU (MILU) or not.
I guess this one is good example.
> A (very minor) annoyance I have is that the default ordering method is
> set as the default value of the flag parameter, so
>
> SparseLU<SparseMatrix<double>, SuperLU> ILU(A, IncompleteFactorization);
>
> leaves the ordering method undefined and thus generates an error message.
yes, maybe using a unique union of bit flags was not a very good idea,
and we should think to something more scalable, any suggestion is
welcome.
cheers,
gael.
> Thanks again,
> Peter Román
>