|Re: [eigen] Remaining beta3 blockers|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Remaining beta3 blockers
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:13:42 -0500
- 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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=k0dFGo+tX9vp1v6XJ13mKxmpApk0qJm0MYJ3P3ewyJk=; b=CAOg32o0bocFC0IkZJr+jplgZAAPBtYA4m5s7YndSYLOL7zogxAnSxFO7c72sGG5YL VVlO/XCtTjpD4rS2zt6iBqEP5/kCSWpiu14vd2pv4esZ1GiiT2u3ygbPI+CZ1L4oAvS7 wV23TmdTJPSNHWCoaeMWNHQnUefA8BOiFo/B4=
- 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=SWkmH+y6jP9wbZ7J7C794gb9+tEl8x5OQgOnyJF7B1gfFCDhnZqv+MPmClQppfMQmb R0vpkVQcEIqeGPv8Bzxw5q8DR0WTKVlolWApwWFbtsABBfJPrDDWxHezba+fqlZfnHTy VO9UjvF5WtY3rOSAOVZSyCHRg9h/+lHggXNV4=
2010/11/23 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2010/11/23 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> 51: no malloc in fixed-size products
>>> Gael, are you looking at it? If needed I'm OK to have it block only 3.0 final.
>> This one is a quite big challenge because it is tightly coupled with
>> multi-threading. Basically, fixing it before having find a good and
>> scalable solution to parallelize all products with less as possible
>> code redundancy means doing the work twice.... :(
>> Currently, not that general matrix-matrix and matrix-vector products
>> are already ok with respect to no malloc for fixed-sizes. Only special
>> products have yet to be fixed.
> Cool, but I don't really understand why this should be related at all
> to multithreading: we don't want any multithreading anyway for fixed
> sizes (nor do we want cache-friendliness nor anything fancy)
>>> 53: Sparse - API stability for basic features
>> I'm think it is more reasonable to postponed it for 3.1 since I'm
>> still not really convinced by my current choices.
> Then move Sparse to unsupported/ ?
Moreover, the sparse_basic test has been failing to compile for a
while. It's preventing one from building the rest of the tests. I'll
have a look asap.
>>> 100: Finalize the array-as-scalar feature
>>> Gael ?
>> This one would make a good "junior" jog, so if someone want to step
>> by? Otherwise I'll do it, np.
> Maybe it's time to start marking junior bugs as such. Feel free to
> create a keyword for that.