temporarily disable linear traversal.

Actually I don't think it's buggy. But it probably triggers existing bugs, I suspect that
some xprs have LinearAccessBit and shouldn't have it.
Also this fixes the "bugs" with JacobiSVD ---> now it works again
This commit is contained in:
Benoit Jacob 2009-11-18 16:31:14 -05:00
parent 8860203e6a
commit 11fa2ae2c6

View File

@ -73,16 +73,18 @@ public:
Traversal = int(MayInnerVectorize) ? int(InnerVectorizedTraversal)
: int(MayLinearVectorize) ? int(LinearVectorizedTraversal)
: int(MaySliceVectorize) ? int(SliceVectorizedTraversal)
: int(MayLinearize) ? int(LinearTraversal)
// : int(MayLinearize) ? int(LinearTraversal)
: int(DefaultTraversal),
Vectorized = int(Traversal) != LinearTraversal && int(Traversal) == DefaultTraversal
Vectorized = int(Traversal) == InnerVectorizedTraversal
|| int(Traversal) == LinearVectorizedTraversal
|| int(Traversal) == SliceVectorizedTraversal
};
private:
enum {
UnrollingLimit = EIGEN_UNROLLING_LIMIT * (Vectorized ? 1 : int(PacketSize)),
UnrollingLimit = EIGEN_UNROLLING_LIMIT * (Vectorized ? int(PacketSize) : 1),
MayUnrollCompletely = int(Derived::SizeAtCompileTime) * int(OtherDerived::CoeffReadCost) <= int(UnrollingLimit),
MayUnrollInner = int(InnerSize * OtherDerived::CoeffReadCost) <= int(UnrollingLimit)
MayUnrollInner = int(InnerSize) * int(OtherDerived::CoeffReadCost) <= int(UnrollingLimit)
};
public:
@ -91,7 +93,7 @@ public:
? (
int(MayUnrollCompletely) ? int(CompleteUnrolling)
: int(MayUnrollInner) ? int(InnerUnrolling)
: int(NoUnrolling)
: int(NoUnrolling)
)
: int(Traversal) == int(LinearVectorizedTraversal)
? ( int(MayUnrollCompletely) && int(DstIsAligned) ? int(CompleteUnrolling) : int(NoUnrolling) )