Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor |

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives ]

*To*: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor*From*: Eugene Zhulenev <ezhulenev@xxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:54:47 -0700*Cc*: Rasmus Munk Larsen <rmlarsen@xxxxxxxxxx>*Dkim-signature*: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k3g4bcvv1uziPkykwvVFjlE8r5e0+MZLMkiYmntHL8s=; b=TTjOJjQBTYCAhsM+85s78xHDow1iOcv4GdbP3keUlTh8+UxOccTV7tQrUYWdBykdgZ E5VqJX2KWs98FPjzWa+o/GfY7SNQmFt60VOSYjsNiFywYiF/L8tG5x0acfCIyul94wDZ A80PP8JkWQm6KbKTuWw6fHImADAM6ntDI73ZKQ/p2x6arAAqttShZhes3kHa3fwtmoUg 4Yc9Y0sr/axgHnGIw0JYrCzPr2FqcXkyMeaawEwzuEOfOnysuTS67ipSwp97sS77HusT JEjr1xgCLhSLtt7rLc24KocUKSOBCySsbmGzI9C5vUvODR61HkMZLuQK2aO0LmIpkkG6 lSAw==

I think that transpose for small sizes should be fixed at head already.

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:34 AM William Tambellini <wtambellini@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Rasmus,Thanks. If I could help (test, profil, ...), please email me. If I remember right, as today, these ops are still faster via Matrix vs Tensor:- reductions- gemvW.William Tambellini | Senior Software Developer | SDL Los Angeles | wtambellini@xxxxxxx

From:Rasmus Munk Larsen <rmlarsen@xxxxxxxxxx>

Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 9:04 AM

To:eigen <eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject:Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensorHi William,

Eugene Zhulenev's work on the new BlockV2 evaluation framework, should make it a lot easier to address some of the performance issues you are seeing, including adding block evaluation for concat. So far, TensorFlow as been using a custom concat operation that does not use Eigen, so we never thought to address this. But if we can make it fast in Eigen and get rid of custom code for this op, we will.

Rasmus

On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 6:52 PM William Tambellini <wtambellini@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Ok for me. Specially if that could ease to resolve the speed issues of the Tensor module.KindWT.

From:Christoph Hertzberg <chtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent:Friday, October 18, 2019 10:03 AM

To:eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject:Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensorHi!

I think some time ago there was some opposition against that step -- in

fact, originally C++03 was only introduced after the first versions of

the Tensor module.

I can't find a reference to that discussion at the moment, I think it

concerned supporting Tensor for some GPU architecture. But this was a

few years ago, and compilers likely evolved since then.

So unless there is an outcry on this list, I'm not against dropping

C++03 support of the Tensor module.

For transitioning it would of course be nice to have a clear "latest

working" version which still supports C++03, one possibility would be to

make that with the 3.4 release. OTOH, this will just complicate

maintenance and Tensors are still "unsupported" for a reason (e.g.., not

having to spend unnecessary time to support them ...)

So just making a clear cut before 3.4 sounds actually better -- this

will also simplify to maintain the upcoming 3.4 and master versions in

parallel (I guess the 3.3.x version of the Tensor module has barely been

touched in recent years).

Cheers,

Christoph

On 18/10/2019 18.46, Rasmus Munk Larsen wrote:

> Dear Eigen tensor users,

>

> Today, various c++11 features are in use in many parts of Eigen tensor,

> while other parts compile with c++03 without warnings. This division is

> rather arbitrary and primarily dictated by what parts of the code gets

> compiled for the subset of tests that are enabled in c++03 mode:

>

> https://bitbucket.org/eigen/eigen/src/default/unsupported/test/CMakeLists.txt#lines-112

>

> A larger set of tests covering the majority of the code base are only

> compiled in c++11 mode:

> https://bitbucket.org/eigen/eigen/src/c4368f48fef3737ef5a48604cfc63ce946b68616/unsupported/test/CMakeLists.txt#lines-179

>

> I don't think a user can realistically use Eigen tensor and avoid the c++11

> parts of the code. Therefore I would propose that we stop pretending that

> Eigen tensor supports c++03 and simply guard all the code with

> EIGEN_HAS_CXX11 or similar. This will then allow us to start cleaning up

> the code.

>

> Please let me know if you have any objections to this.

>

> Best,

> Rasmus

>

--

Dr.-Ing. Christoph Hertzberg

Besuchsadresse der Nebengeschäftsstelle:

DFKI GmbH

Robotics Innovation Center

Robert-Hooke-Straße 5

28359 Bremen, Germany

Postadresse der Hauptgeschäftsstelle Standort Bremen:

DFKI GmbH

Robotics Innovation Center

Robert-Hooke-Straße 1

28359 Bremen, Germany

Tel.: +49 421 178 45-4021

Zentrale: +49 421 178 45-0

E-Mail: christoph.hertzberg@xxxxxxx

Weitere Informationen: http://www.dfki.de/robotik

-------------------------------------------------------------

Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH

Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany

Geschäftsführung:

Prof. Dr. Jana Koehler (Vorsitzende)

Dr. Walter Olthoff

Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:

Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes

Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313

-------------------------------------------------------------

Click here to report this email as spam.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor***From:*Deven Desai

**References**:**[eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor***From:*Rasmus Munk Larsen

**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor***From:*Christoph Hertzberg

**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor***From:*William Tambellini

**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor***From:*Rasmus Munk Larsen

**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor***From:*William Tambellini

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor** - Next by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor** - Next by thread:
**Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor**

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ | http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/ |