[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] nesting
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:15:23 -0500
- 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=A8H1M/JwVJSVNLIxw3oFDGuTOgiS7NyH+4/lDxE4QLw=; b=opuPW8RVGSeLemhoCvzZzCJ7QbqTCfa5W54kVZ2sMXCdlyyLcqj2e2XWJxVTuLfzP+ XGjWzdKF0zA1ytq3ji4WXjrRAptXrvUsMb7WnVQXenTbk396MENAhd5U0Jh94Ov1GKge 6UKgjkFcAgxZS21yWMojDlj1D4NPAFyHos0aw=
- 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=f8UAy9dhKR9QrcFtUgb2HOm4DaT3aDvMkUetmlM1xrSVTZwhzK955j6hqkf/zKH6QY gGhERyCl2NqymXNdLcIRXGeG6WpgL2QhlUubQzMd4nXcrDKObXgSDHsEYqjzuQbC+X+i FvgO6WYN3Do0RtSwna71b6THTEbFGyzDy1qR0=
2010/2/6 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I am ready to push. These tests are currently failing (GCC 4.4.1)
> 98% tests passed, 8 tests failed out of 380
> 84 - adjoint_4 (Failed)
> 182 - stable_norm_1 (Failed)
> 183 - stable_norm_2 (Failed)
> 184 - stable_norm_3 (Failed)
> 185 - stable_norm_4 (Failed)
> 197 - lu_2 (Failed)
> 375 - nullary_7 (Failed)
> 376 - nullary_8 (Failed)
> Stable norm is always failing over here for the others I am not sure.
> I don't want to look into the failing tests right now but I'ld like to
> push what is there so far. Any concerns regarding pushing?
I'm not so concerned about stable_norm as it is a non central feature,
but the assortment of other test failures suggests that something
really central is still not right.
Could you, for now, rather push to a fork?
Just create a fork on bitbucket and do
hg push https://clone/url/of/new/fork
> - long term we still might need Gael's full expression processor approach
> - regression tests for product related expressions and the number of temporaries
> - maybe a new unit test, checking the nesting type
> - verify that the failing tests have nothing to do with the applied changes
> - Hauke
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Wow, this is a great test!
>> I haven't tried to think if it is enough or if you should add
>> something, but at least it's a great piece of testing code.
>> 2010/2/6 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> It is working. Now I just have to double check all Flag definitions
>>> within Eigen, something around ~53, since potentially I need to add
>>> the EIGEN_PROPAGATE_NESTING_BIT define.
>>> I could also do a lot of testing - what do you think how much is sane?
>>> See the attached file which basically tests Replicate, Reverse, Select
>>> in combination with and without different kinds of products. I think
>>> testing every single combination is a little bit overkill - what do
>>> you think?
>>> - Hauke
>>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Hauke Heibel
>>> <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> It should have been "toggle only the storage order."
>>>> Since we now have bit which are not inherited, we might rename
>>>> HereditaryBits bits and introduce a new set. How about
>>>> DominantBits /* always inherited */
>>>> RecessiveBits /* only in rare cases inherited */
>>>> Then, in the future one could do
>>>> Flags = OtherType::Flags & ~RecessiveBits
>>>> to disable only those we don't want to inherit. This will of course
>>>> only then make sense, when there is the possibility for new recessive
>>>> bits in the future or just because we like it...
>>>> - Hauke