Re: [eigen] Using Triangular Views

Well, by "on purpose" I really meant that the implementation is missing and we knew it. The reason is lack of time and tri*tri products are much less common than tri*general. For instance LAPACK only requires tri*general, and BLAS does not provide tri*tri.

Actually, tri*tri could be easily implemented for small matrices trough a naive dot-product based implementation, but this version would be very slow for not very small matrices.

gael

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Christoph Hertzberg <chtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2016-08-30 15:03, Gael Guennebaud wrote:

The situation here is different because tri*tri never compiled (on
purpose), [...]

Ok, fair enough. At least not worth blocking 3.3
But I'm afraid I don't recall why tri*tri is forbidden on purpose. Isn't this one of the most obvious things one wants to do with triangular matrices?

I actually just found the following in FullPivLU::reconstructedMatrix():

// FIXME the .toDenseMatrix() should not be needed...
res = m_lu.leftCols(smalldim)
.template triangularView<UnitLower>().toDenseMatrix()
* m_lu.topRows(smalldim)
.template triangularView<Upper>().toDe

I guess there are other cases for that.

Christoph

--
Dipl. Inf., Dipl. Math. Christoph Hertzberg

Universität Bremen
FB 3 - Mathematik und Informatik
AG Robotik
Robert-Hooke-Straße 1
28359 Bremen, Germany

Zentrale: +49 421 178 45-6611

Besuchsadresse der Nebengeschäftsstelle:
Robert-Hooke-Straße 5
28359 Bremen, Germany

Tel.: +49 421 178 45-4021
Empfang: +49 421 178 45-6600
Fax: +49 421 178 45-4150
E-Mail: chtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Weitere Informationen: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/robotik