| Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:58:49 +0200
- Cc: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qg4N0xKHZSxEmWXDgvIT0BnITyb93bPleUhfoEKkJws=; b=Gl6HRzQJwCe5YHPtIP+1FqrEBLnz0pW3uekxeR5XFX3m4QVcIita+oPuBoPp+/DVFI gThA44RWm9vv4QXopqgW2XCm64oq2lQbfVhaliZDV5dSVQd9Mkc5nsrCXWB+KyUfdmCz ttalOWa08cnkKdgg5CgT2tUIUh06oMSRFuhPs=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=jiZMBtZcWuINnMTXBrWRexA3W5HTI7ZwKdblC55yIuc1V7QAdxmh3d9NSINYjxuT+b Zms3/BNxixRF4OCB4LUXJBx1c+8l/rTXAgRGM+am7JOVanxiPbXJtvaTyOdRCCGxJPUZ PFa4J/4e5KHH0gc4Moq4ZKk4FUeKnKRETu9EE=
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...except that the tests are still failing at runtime,
> geo_transformations_1:
> /home/bjacob/eigen/Eigen/src/Geometry/Transform.h:246:
> Eigen::Transform<Scalar, Dim, Mode>::Transform(const
> Eigen::Transform<_Scalar, Dim, OtherMode>&) [with int OtherMode = 32,
> _Scalar = double, int _Dim = 3, int _Mode = 2]: Assertion
> `OtherMode!=Projective && "You cannot directly assign a projective
> transform to an affine one."' failed.
Ok, I can't finish this today, since I have to leave.
One of the problems seems to come from the definition of
ei_transform_transform_product_impl in line 1299 (approx.) in
Transform.h. The template looks like this
template<typename Scalar, int Dim, int LhsMode, int RhsMode>
struct ei_transform_transform_product_impl { ... }
and the ResultType is solely depending on LhsMode where I assume that
this is wrong. I did not yet quite look into all details such as
ei_transform_right_product_impl but I think we need something like
this
template<int ModeLhs, int ModeRhs> struct
ei_transform_product_result<TMode,TMode> { enum { Mode = ... }; };
I am wondering whether there is a simpler way but to specialize for
all combinations. Maybe someone of you has immediately an idea how to
simplify this. Benoit wanted to prevent relying on the Mode, otherwise
I would have suggested
Mode = ModeLhs > ModeRhs ? ModeLhs : ModeRhs;
but that is not really nice.
- Hauke