From: Karl Meerbergen (Karl.Meerbergen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-18 09:17:20
The boost-sandbox is updated. I hope all is ok. I think there is a
problem with the implementation of the bindings. The implementation of
leading_dimension() should not rely on size_m, but rather on size1() and
size2() depending on the orientation of the matrix. It would solve the
incompatibility problems with older versions of ublas that have been
reaised a couple of times.
Karl
Gunter Winkler wrote:
>Hugo Duncan schrieb:
>
>
>>For a column major matrix, I believe the major size is the number of
>>columns, so the leading dimension should be the minor size. The debugger
>>leads me to confirm these beliefs. But I get thoroughly confused by major
>>and minor sizes, so I would not be too categoric in stating this.
>>
>>
>>
>In any case is the leading dimension the minor size. It is defined as
>the number of consecutive elements that form a row (row major) or column
>(column major). So I vote for size_m() as leading dimension.
>
>BTW: major size is outer loop, minor size is inner loop
>
>mfg
>Gunter
>
>_______________________________________________
>ublas mailing list
>ublas_at_[hidden]
>http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
>
>