| Re: [eigen] Eigen2 to Eigen3 Migration Path |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Eigen2 to Eigen3 Migration Path
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:14:00 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vIXTAdJFIOegFWXub5/KaeQQPDEFmdPEnuAWUuPdg70=; b=PjhO3vD6kY+xnMoFCUNjr4JgJD4ibE8uqUYD0OGUjJ5n2V9wA8IPyxPj9VZLcHxwkR nhZs/6jVOTCVGjlzDNwgFTtedxqY+Y9GK/pmUo8gZVApiCl3caY2Oa5elhqrtHG1itjL N7UAKjyIea8zX/xAh8Vcgh++OSEVlxEbBhrNo=
- 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=dXCjnmOBAJ9a2o7HaEFgPdLFvWPOm7Pe64jA/zpB+CiaETwb5aF9UFWi+PEN9DNnqx +ztFB5xRplxVbL1r/Xf+I5Cr1+cq//Gp3agHPNWLdNbPpivOsRtXkWKKXdCrKzJELNyD X+N5ifLgiIeeF1MtYWOVe8y8J/uzb6cz5FSUs=
yes, running our Eigen2 unit tests on Eigen3+EIGEN2_SUPPORT is a very good idea.
gael
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2011/1/13 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Gael Guennebaud
>> <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> The EIGEN2_SUPPORT way seems much more powerful. Let's be specific. If
>>> project A wants to use Eigen3 as well as a lib B which relies on
>>> Eigen2 then there are two cases:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1 - lib B is a pure template lib (or at least the parts which rely on
>>> Eigen2) then EIGEN2_SUPPORT should do the job (we can make it better
>>> if needed).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2 - lib B is a binary library with a public API involving Eigen2
>>> objects. Then there is still the possibility to recompile B with
>>> Eigen3+EIGEN2_SUPPORT.
>>
>> 3 - lib B is a binary library without Eigen2 in the public API. Again, there
>> exists the possibility to recombile B with Eigen3+EIGEN2_SUPPORT.
>>
>> Asumming for a moment we had Eigen:: and Eigen3:: namespaces. This would
>> imply the following things.
>
> OK, so let's focus for now on Gael's solution (tell people to use
> Eigen3 + EIGEN2_SUPPORT) plus my suggestion to make EIGEN2_SUPPORT as
> complete as possible and validated by the actual eigen2 test suite. At
> least it doesn't hurt anyone.
>
> It's true that if Eigen3 + EIGEN2_SUPPORT were 100% API compatible
> with Eigen2 then the lack of ABI compatibility wouldn't be a big
> problem anymore since switching would be virtually costless.
>
>> Regarding kdl (http://www.orocos.org/kdl), I tried to compile it
>> against Eigen3+EIGEN2_SUPPORT and the major hickup I am seeing is caused by
>> Map's const-correctness. We should be able to fix that through the plugin by
>> re-enabling the non-const constructor of Maps though I did not properly
>> think this over.
>
> Ah, ok. It should be quite easy to allow non-const-correct Map
> constructors with EIGEN2_SUPPORT.
>
> Benoit
>
>
>