Boost logo

Ublas :

Subject: Re: [ublas] Project using ublas and the lapack bindings
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-28 19:41:09

Rutger ter Borg wrote:
> If you're looking for numeric bindings that primarily have a stable
> interface, please check the non-development numeric_bindings-v1 in the
> sandbox. However, I'm not sure if it supports all the routines you
> mentioned.

I tried to find out which routines are available in numeric_bindings-v1 by looking for them via "find . -name "*.hpp" -exec grep getrf \{} \; -print". Here is the result:

    * getrf -> gesv.hpp
    * getri -> gesv.hpp
    * trtri -> missing
    * tptri -> missing
    * zgges -> missing
    * hseqr -> hseqr.hpp
    * BDSQR -> missing
    * geqrf -> geqrf.hpp
    * ungqr -> missing

This doesn't make it easy to help Jesse. So I decided to test the new automatically generated numeric_bindings... I started by modifying the automatically generated CMake build system such that it works on my system, and typed "make -k". Some bindings failed to compile, but most passed at least the "does a file including the automatically generated binding compiles?" test. So I thought about making the test more challenging ("does code using the automatically generated binding compiles?"), but noticed that the checked in bindings generator doesn't reproduce the checked in automatically generated bindings. Could you check in the latest version of the bindings generator? (The difference is quite small, so I could also live with checked in bindings generator for what I'm trying to do.)