Re: [boost] Interest in a new generic matrix library with specific 3D operations?

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a new generic matrix library with specific 3D operations?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-02 20:43:31

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Hi Fabien,
>
>
> 2014-07-02 16:36 GMT+02:00 Fabien Picarougne <
> fabien.picarougne_at_[hidden]>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have developed a generic matrix library with some specialization for 3D
> > operations. I wondering if it would be of interest for me to submit it
> as a
> > Boost library.
> >
> > There are some differences compared to the current ublas/matrix class.
> The
> > dimensions of this matrix are template parameters, this allows to make
> > specializations for particular dimensions and efficiency in some
> > combinations of parameters.
> >
> > This library takes advantage of some C++11 elements and so requires a
> C++11
> > enabled compiler. I have tested it with gcc 4.8.2 and MSVC 2013.
> >
> > It contains a generic global matrix class (CMat) which can be specialized
> > in
> > a number of matrix (square matrix, vectors, 4x4 matrix.) in order to use
> > more efficient algorithms or adding particular methods. Because I use it
> in
> > a 3D rendering engine, I have built a specific CMat4x4 class with
> standard
> > 3D operators on matrix and vectors.
> >
> > I have posted the current code here:
> > https://bitbucket.org/fpicarougne/template-matrix-library
> >
> > In order to use all the specializations, include "Matrix/CMat3D.hpp" and
> > take a look to "Matrix.cpp" for an example of usage.
> >
>
> Your proposal is closer to the QVM library (
> http://www.revergestudios.com/boost-qvm/) already proposed for inclusion
> into Boost than to uBlas.
> Have you checked it out?
> Your work could be a nice extension of this library. In particular, Matrix
> and Vector concepts from QVM could be used and specializations of
> algorithms optimized for some specific Matrices sizes dispatched in
> compile-time.
> Emil what do you think?
>

The QVM library is more generic.

In my experience, while the interface of the operations of a vector/matrix
library can be standardized, it is often impractical to standardize the
vector and matrix types themselves, because different use cases demand
different compromise between ease of use and performance. For example, 16
or 32-byte alignment may result in maximum speed but that isn't always the
best option.

That's why the emphasis in the QVM library is on the generic nature of the
operations: they are independent of any types and can kick-in for any
user-defined or third-party matrix/vector types (and of course types that
QVM itself emits).

This allows developers to define platform-, project- or even
module-specific types and the full set of QVM operations become available
automatically. Later, if necessary, profiler-guided optimizations can
target only a critical subset of the types and the operations; e.g. one can
overload to optimize only operator*, and only for some aligned_mat44 type
(overload resolution will always prefer such user-defined overloads over
the QVM overloads.)

-- 
Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode