Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-11 12:15:56
on 11.08.2009 at 18:55
Rutger ter Borg wrote :
>> 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++.
speaking of such routines like finding eigenvalues or performing SVD i
agree with you
but nativly implemented blas seems to me better than mapping to
that's what i'm talking about
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk