From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-28 09:06:06
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] uBLAS formal review
> From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]>
> > Not using valarray<> prevents fast 'memcpy' optimizations...
> valarray isn't the only route to those optimizations is it? Couldn't one
> equally say "not using std::copy() prevents fast 'memcpy'
You are right, valarray<> isn't the only route for those optimizations.
What I meant to say -but I didn't- is that there are at least 3 different
ublas arrays all sharing a common internal array representation. It seems
reasonable to me to factor this out into a POD-optimized value-based array.
That's the purpose of valarray, isn't it?
I know nobody likes it (valarray), but at least as a concept it is precisely
up to this task (being used as the internal storage of a higher level array
If valarray<> usual implementations can't be trusted, I would code a
valarray like, POD-optimized, class as part of ublas and use it. It doesn't
need much of the valarray<> interface, so it can be quite simple.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk