|Re: [eigen] Eigen Types as Parameters for Functions|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Eigen Types as Parameters for Functions
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:53:57 +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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2G0RVYCp/GnfygXHa4OwdXNlKsIfhO74oIgOV/wNovI=; b=e0aSLBe9yJF9fJ/+q9OuYaXlNXAtnnu837BNBysy2YLEZBbhZUe4KAOeVs/7+jQHjb hthDZsr2qcAcnIHj1MSI2cGPIxJjezCLHnIVC3xPKyIYOFCecDjDgQv1rKNrvTf88jkg +liFyFLXHZuf9H20AsjWWR7csh3W7bkK4pqIixUoEoxLBdTAXFi/AlWA9ArNB4c1y9D9 5XB183YmS1CvJ/lSIH5ENJqMg4qSZKfnZvrUYGQ7a6yc5oXaOqnpgUnAvEcQEUWSZ0rh aFeAnnhL/TO08KyMWTyl1PAiwaNEFnOvB5JgGs5CAm/sFJB+zkgc6mGRFSWCqgsm7eUH jO2Q==
Thanks Christoph, I tend to agree with you. I've uploaded a new
version with extended usage examples there:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Christoph Hertzberg
> On 02.07.2012 12:06, Gael Guennebaud wrote:
>>>> That's the solution I wanted to suggest. I proposed to pass the Ref<>
>>>> objects by value mostly because it looks better for writable
>>>> arguments. Having a "const Ref<VectorXf>&" writable is a bit
>>>> dangerous. But if we agree that copy-back is a no go, then the
>>>> internal m_object will exists only for const version so one could pass
>>>> by a const reference for const arguments, and by value for writable
>>> Yes, sounds like a plan. This should cause no overhead if the m_object is
>>> not required, just some temporary stack space.
>>> Furthermore, this can then be used for (fixed size) aligned references as
>>> well, copying the expression, iff it is not aligned at compile-time.
>> Since we are fine-tuning the expected behavior, I wonder whether we
>> should allow implicit evaluation for inputs having "direct-access".
>> Let's consider a function foo1 taking a "const Ref<const VectorXf>&"
>> as argument. It is expected that the following calls yield an
>> evaluation into a temporary:
>> However, when the input argument references an object with storage, an
>> implicit evaluation might be surprising as in the following cases:
>> If we forbid such cases, in practice this means the user will have to
>> explicitly call .eval() in such cases. This behavior would also be
>> coherent with the non-const version for which 1) the input argument
>> has by construction "direct-acces", and 2) we already stated that
>> implicit evaluation into a temp would be too risky.
>> On the other hand, if we do so, I already see users coming back to us
>> with statements as "foo(1*A.row(i)) compiles but foo(A.row()) does
>> not, wtf?". So I'm a bit puzzled here.
> I would suggest allowing both (and evaluate into a temporary iff necessary).
> If you then mention in the documentation that direct access types which do
> not fit the memory layout of Ref<> are evaluated into a temporary, nobody
> should have legitimate complaints about that behavior -- it would be
> basically the same problem/feature that C++ implicitly evaluates expressions
> to const references if possible.
> If there is a need for prohibiting implicit evaluations, we could introduce
> another Ref<> specialization which never evaluates.
> Maybe Ref<VectorXd>, Ref<const VectorXd> and Ref<const VectorXd&> (with only
> the second evaluating), or add an Options flag after to the Strides
> Dipl.-Inf. Christoph Hertzberg
> Cartesium 0.049
> Universität Bremen
> Enrique-Schmidt-Straße 5
> 28359 Bremen
> Tel: +49 (421) 218-64252