|Re: [eigen] Decrease in performances|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Decrease in performances
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:36:10 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=RY2APeH+H8qbhacejx1UeCAWz5TfSbobyvYVo0N3Uv4=; b=P6dzqA9HQUCGJEjq0cp4fCTbtvL0N5sxhHUir5G6qCdGUuTJOLWKe3GquLvvLCvBkv lNBfHBvDqNClYAxWr+fn1Y49PEQPJud++qvpEdfzWDzTKS2vFTh091wWa7w0kH/XEt49 BOmTHukKvEngFKS0OphmbW/wkclv5i7YNVA7Fp7TNrJ96L05naVoUyXVdepwZeMI0/+7 nyy0gR/DexEifOkcrsRIbctKc+sAknw+H47oSoGYp2IIs2J1uJ3syQ2LDETZ8FcTVXVv VSRqvNK2qMN1hObmi4oLOUOQOvWSv9tWMG954a9lj/p4v38FMM2U5vyK2uqEdZFiExiX e/6Q==
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jitse Niesen <jitse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 23:07, Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Now about optimizing the check itself, before implementing subtle
>> mechanisms I'd like to see an example of any performance hit.
> Instead of optimizing the check, would it be possible to argue that it's the
> user's responsibility and not ours to ensure that row * col does not
> overflow (which we should of course clearly document)? In that case, the
> check would only need to take place when NDEBUG is not defined, but not in
> production code.
It might be an option too. I'm not against it.