| Re: [eigen] Indexes: why signed instead of unsigned? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Indexes: why signed instead of unsigned?
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:53:33 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=eFZ2sru4pcY2wj4MSI6byqGFGdbjhRNTbM3SZFIJLFQ=; b=dJwnnMBr9013tngTd2bDog7inFqlKlHAzl04D09jwZbFw6LIbsmI5hILr8gWc4wh+x NhFzPQVB41305W+WCb9r7iWnO+yHopRa1aYj11M5KLDbNEzR5hruUUVCg80mN6+/H1nK y9HzcVtF0Yt1yxK3r97B8eTmWdg9Bjq191Lqs=
- 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; b=DpshjWxeW9vj0js68fPTe0SPeK2j3pXadV2qQryHpO5FB7VJy0FSn3ENHFAkboliXr geO2h/MczrJR6/KUSv5MIkMHefLZI/JLLDs529BqjpfTYjkigptpkR+Ay2707c/cFZu9 2sV075tiy0pOHBvvu8jFlVwwYE2v0AePFWluI=
2010/5/11 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On 11 May 2010 16:47, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I just had a diabolic idea, if we agree that bigger-than-2^31-support
>> is not a top priority and will at most be used by relatively few
>> people, then we can keep things unchanged for now, so keep 'int' in
>> Eigen 3.0, and later on, when actual people actually need it (perhaps
>> in eigen 3.45), add a non-default compile-time option
>> EIGEN_USE_LONG_INDICES. Such an option would then break the ABI of
>> Eigen classes, so it couldn't become default.
>>
>> Question - is BLAS/LAPACK using int or ptrdiff_t ?
>>
>> Benoit
>
> As this move will break the ABI then why not implement it right on the
> 3.0 release instead of pushing it to a point release in the future?
Because we've a lot on our plates already now.
Benoit
>
>
> Rui Maciel
>
>
>