Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-11 10:55:06
> wrapping blas or uBLAS is not my intent
> uBLAS does not support some handy concepts such as complexity of
> expressions so if you try to wrap uBLAS involving complexity you probably
> simply double code size because too many is to be wrapped
> e.g. (V1+V2) has linear complexity, (M1*V1) has square compl.,
> (M1*M2) has cubic compl. etc.
I would argue that wrapping around back-ends is the best one could do, given
the vendor support they have, and man-years spent on them. E.g., using
template expressions to rewrite a free expression to an optimal set of back-
end calls (to BLAS, LAPACK, FFTW, etc.)? Then you would be able to benefit
from vendor-optimised back-ends, and the expressiveness of C++.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk