| Re: [eigen] alignment bug - or where is our non sse inversion gone? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] alignment bug - or where is our non sse inversion gone?
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:19:09 +0200
- 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:content-type; bh=+wRBZA6VOpZKKXVOxA4bwHRIKPySEjnFh+DZvHIr7Gc=; b=f+wetMIp+DllAz8039qEMdaNwRIoNgG6rxpdJ3WubOyrVuS7DUH335g6+Y1Evv/n29 Mra5rcJO6dS6sPpvxImV3PLgxNGE1ixlvPli8CRlO/Za4hLpm1/kuMEkuSAY0OZ81d7p PXFoIGR1SSnu6QL/q7AvkCWU+R2ypFSTyLLwI=
- 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 :content-type; b=hYyCKFvpsrtoToVPI1jfQFHA2f3CgaSDFC95pSuuV6kG2K+cQ7+97qBoASW1qu2p9J thzzjun9OdLuoB6jaosKeNJLKElx6OMO1Uij5xI0qiZGwcS+h7y7aNIZ1YsWGJOgnAVk hklcTpqi/wGkmx4AFBqpEvZ01DGoGGN8SKqTw=
But we already have this parameter, see ei_compute_inverse_size4 in
Inverse.h line 223 and then line 249.
This is why I was thinking we need to adapt the Architecture structure.
- Hauke
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Gael Guennebaud
<gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for finding this bug.
>
> Actually no need to define EIGEN_DONT_ALIGN_STATICALLY to hit it, simply use:
>
> Matrix<float,4,4,DontAlign>
>
> The fix is to do the same than for ei_quat_product, i.e., add an
> Aligned/Unaligned template parameter to ei_compute_inverse_size4.
>
> will do it.
>
> gael
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Hauke Heibel
> <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Hauke Heibel
>> <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I just stumbled over a problem when using EIGEN_DONT_ALIGN_STATICALLY
>>> is defined.
>>
>> Uups, did I mention that what is happening is an unaligned memory
>> access and followed by a segfault??
>>
>> - Hauke
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>