Re: [eigen] ILU decomposition

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]


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


> Thanks again,
> Peter Román

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+