octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#706376: Bug#706376: octave: sparse matrix n*2


From: Michael D. Godfrey
Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#706376: Bug#706376: octave: sparse matrix n*2^16
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:14:38 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.5

On 04/30/2013 01:19 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 04/30/2013 12:56 PM, Ed Meyer wrote:

Not only is it desirable to have sparse and full matrices behave similarly,
I believe the user should not need to be aware of which storage format
is used so functions like eig() would work for either.
The key is to use the C++ class system to have different implementations
for each storage format.

I haven't been following this thread closely and I haven't thought much about the details but I have no objection to trying to do a better job with handling numel and dimensions/indices generally.

Is there some way we can get the better behavior in a minimally invasive way?

Even if it requires significant changes, maybe we should consider what the options are anyway.

What changes are needed to make octave_idx_type behave the way you way you want?

jwe

It would be good to give some thought to the trade-off of "fixing" the current system against completing the 64bit compiling system. The 64bit system will be useful in other ways and should be done in any case. Of course, any improvement in the current system is good, but the full implementation of large matrices could be a
64bit system feature.

Jordi seemed to think that 2^63 indicies would work with "no trouble" in the 64bit
system...

Michael



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]