| Re: [eigen] vectorization of complex |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] vectorization of complex
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:26:45 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XxdLhF7fwMB8XP1uAymsvaV7zbnW1YCcbBBEZoXGAX4=; b=SF8DOiP/k2SmTcnfe7/XE67STuVBmJdc+gVsPd6wQHLaftlwmvDIlmA3TcDo+VvAfa a5qJHfOM8S8oyAxya5V5TTYRy82FAj7GyBASNCN9F08Ctlv3sDU9UA1l1yL77cW2eHJ0 IKZwni/QYWvNeWBOKzXQ6/igHMbKmZIfUVtgU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eZ/CpdLCfCFCbpbnqb5KsVr5n6ISn3tR+1Qp+QxCXhv7nmc4npiO0u9gkSfSwEBcR+ I0ihJ+aGwq6Tlji2qA2iB/jOh860i17T3qTMB/JlREIO6Y+H+/MlmztjwaM8tyjToZI2 cq/+n/kc2wt4e5JFJ4Fpy8ZHNj8RN4O/ct8hk=
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Joel Falcou <joel.falcou@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20/07/10 16:01, Gael Guennebaud wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM, FMDSPAM<fmdspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 20.07.2010 11:47, schrieb Gael Guennebaud:
>>>>
>>>> [...] but 3 swizzling and one "bitwise or" operation to negate
>>>> some coefficients. This make it far to be optimal. In particular
>>>> swizzling is extremely costly. Moreover all these "complex" operations
>>>> requires many additional registers to store the temporaries. [...]
>>>
>>> In another threat matlab was "blamed" to use separate matrices for real
>>> and
>>> imaginary parts instead of one matrix of complex coeff.
>>> How do you think, this would compete?
>>
>> Good point, with such an approach it is straightforward to support
>> complex-complex and mixing types on top of a real-real matrix product
>> with good performance I guess....
>>
>
> NT2 use 2x array for complex matrix (and for any non scalar type in fact)
> and it significantly simplify the vectorization process. What was the blames
> for doing so ?
Yes it clearly simplify the vectorization of products but for the rest
I'm not sure (but who cares about the rest ?). It is also to be
compatible with BLAS/LAPACK.
>
> Also note all LAPACK thingy use this format.
hm, BLAS/LAPACK use the fortran COMPLEX type with interleaved real and
imaginary part. Did I miss something?
gael
>
>
>