Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-17 02:34:18

DE wrote:

>> * split containers from expressions
> don't get what you mean by that
> they are already splitted

With that I meant that every linear algebra library tends to provide its own
implementation of vector and matrix types. Sometimes with different access
semantics. One could use std::vector for dense vectors, (unordered) map for
sparse vectors/matrices. Perhaps what's missing in the standard containers
are matrices? In other words, I would prefer using a traits system to access
any container.

Suppose if only standard containers were to be used, perhaps

let(C) = a*A*B + b*C

will be enough to inject template expressions?

I've also noted that matrix libraries are usually not exhaustive with their
matrix classes. There's all kinds of stuff, like symmetric, triangular,
diagonal, banded, bidiagonal, tridiagonal, .... Adaptors / math property
wrapper come in handy too, if you have another container which happens to be
a symmetric matrix or a symmetric matrix which happens to be positive

E.g., suppose A is dense,

x = solve( A, b )
x = solve( positive_definite( upper( A ) ), b )

in the second case you say to use the upper triangular part, and make that
pos def. in my work for writing a python translator from LAPACK's Fortran
source base to C++ bindings code, I've come across the specializations
available in LAPACK, that might give a clue for an exhaustive list and write
down a good set of orthogonal concepts (e.g., storage traits, structure
traits, math properties, etc.).

>> * split algorithms from expressions, i.e., enable pluggable/customisable
>> back-ends into the expression templates
> actually it's rather trivial
> specialize a template for concrete expression to your taste and you are
> done

Although this sounds good, I think in some cases there will be multiple
matches of available algorithms. Then the specialization for the expression
with the highest numerical complexity should "win" (assuming the gain is
highest there). Is this trivial, too?

This would be really neat, I think an entire area of research is writing
algorithms for special cases.

>> * achieve performance of FORTRAN-based programs (dominant in HPC)
> that is the hardest part i suppose
> but i'm sure it is achievable

Given the previous point, it's trivial to plug-in BLAS and LAPACK, so plus
minus some handling of temporaries, we might already be almost there.

What I forgot to mention was error bounds and error propagation. For many
users this may be more important than speed. Many algorithms are specialized
for this purpose only (same speed, but higher precision).



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at