| Re: [eigen] Allocation policy of eigen decompositions |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Allocation policy of eigen decompositions
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:59:13 -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:received:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=G2a42eDJrLkKKOGvp7f77PD+MSYqL/OC7KX6k5LepfQ=; b=cMZAtPQtUpyVC8g07qg9R+lHI/yumh4rG1cCwwttxWEmyNTcHzLbJppxRyvO7bDrhY vZ9SUbBvH3LFPALMnzzKN5Kp/KXQTvpMvF/5uEOe2bdZYi08KX/5bgfcLU8yvFdwplqD Z0dZ2KwW/8inm29IrMe07+r6sid88s7PV8mao=
- 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=d9m7JkUBYzF/kgVff3Ts+u70DFH10A+r/t2j4g4/PBFcelw8CiMFXSBd/SwBNg2NV0 OT1lLmqtv25CElbESW1I1+z1vxMQkUULlRTX6HttDReLuiZoCjf+4qXyDrAMtGH6z7gW VyNbXNv1FruciXm1aHbLd0cAHiLb1FPM/0WcY=
2010/4/20 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2010/4/20 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> 2010/4/20 Adolfo Rodríguez Tsouroukdissian <adolfo.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/4/20 Adolfo Rodríguez Tsouroukdissian <dofo79@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, my bad! I added this eval() for debugging and forgot to remove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you retry now? This should remove 1 heap allocation. I really
>>>>> don't know where the 3 others can be coming from, but that would be a
>>>>> bug that we (I...) introduced, so you don't have to block your stuff
>>>>> because of it.
>>>>
>>>> Removing eval() did the trick. I was seeing four allocations because the
>>>> call to applyHouseholderOnTheLeft is inside a loop :s, so problem solved.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FYI: A secondary effect of removing the above eval() is that these tests are
>>> now failing:
>>>
>>> householder_5
>>> householder_6
>>> householder_7
>>
>> I can reproduce the householder_6 failure, not the others. Thanks for
>> letting me know.
>
> I can now confirm the 5,6,7 failures with vectorization disabled.
>
> I am afraid that I introduced a huge bug that so far had been hidden
> by this eval(). Investigating...
This is now fixed, can you retry?
Benoit