Re: Banded matrix storage

Gunter,
I am working on this bug, but based on the test case I am wondering why 
should the expected row-major data layout be:

0, 0, 11, 12, 0, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 0

And not

0, 12, 23, 34, 45, 11, 22, 33, 44, 55, 21, 32, 43, 54, 0, 31, 42, 53, 0, 0 ?

For the moment I got the column-major implementation working as 
expected, but I need to add some more tests cases to make sure it is 
working for non-square matrices as well.

Regards,

-Nasos



On 10/21/2012 04:57 PM, Gunter Winkler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Monday 15 October 2012 schrieb Rutger ter Borg:
>> On 2012-10-15 18:09, Gunter Winkler wrote:
>>> Could you please provide a simple test program which checks the
>>> storage format? Then we (or maybe you) can create a new ticket.
>>>
>>> mfg
>>> Gunter
>> thanks for the response. I've attached a test program, its output is
>> shown below. I haven't created a ticket yet, because I would like to
>> make sure the test is correct first. I double-checked the 'expected
>> data()' values, to me they seem to be correct.
> I agree, the mapping from (i,j) to storage location is weird. I created
> an issue: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7549
>
> Now we only need a volunteer to fix it ...
>
> mfg
> Gunter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ublas mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
> Sent to: [email protected]