Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: joel (joel.falcou_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-17 03:02:38
Rutger ter Borg wrote:
> Stricly speaking, yes, but from a user's point of view I don't think so.
> Please see my reply to Pavel.
Done and answered ;)
> I would say LAPACK is where the fun starts. Selecting algorithms based on
> the lowest complexity would be good I guess. One could think of it as a
> compile-time analytic/semantic preprocessor of an expression.
It's what NT2 do.
> I would say let's start where they (fortran-based code) are now, and improve
> from there? I.e., start with plugged BLAS and LAPACK, replace with faster
> C++ constructs
Yes for real tricky stuff (starting with matrix-matrix product).
NT2 is for example able to call the proper LAPACK function when doing
a*b, a*trans(b), trans(a)*b etc ...
It's really easy to do with proper proto transform for checking
composition and generating the
proper call. We solved a large part of the interfacing problem by
designing a template aware
LAPACK bindings (http://lpp.sourceforge.net).
-- ___________________________________________ Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI Tel : (+33)1 69 15 66 35
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk