Linear Transformation kernel for CPU #1300
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
include/dali/core/geom/mat.h
Outdated
| template <int rows, int cols, typename T = float> | ||
| DALI_HOST_DEV constexpr dali::mat<rows, cols, T> eye() { | ||
| mat<rows, cols, T> ret(0); | ||
| for (int i = 0; i < rows && i < cols; i++) { | ||
| ret(i, i) = 1; | ||
| } | ||
| return ret; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| template <int N, typename T = float> | ||
| DALI_HOST_DEV constexpr dali::mat<N, N, T> eye() { | ||
| return eye<N, N, T>(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These functions are redundant. Construction from scalar puts that scalar on the diagonal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is in my opinion baaaad. Is there any FW or library, that does the diagonal-initialization by the constructor? I'd rather expect the construtor to initialize all the matrix elements with given value (cf. OpenCV). I'd vote for chaning the behavoiur of the constructor, but not in this PR, since this change can create problems...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's what you have in OpenGL / shader programming.
Since matrices are usually used for multiplaction and vectors for addition, this gives consistent results:
mat3 A;
A * 5 == A * mat3(5);
vec4 v;
v + 5 = v + vec4(5);
|
|
||
| template <int rows, int cols, typename T> | ||
| std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &os, const dali::mat<rows, cols, T> &m) { | ||
| for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Side-note: we'd certainly want a prettier printer for matrices, but it'll do for the sake of this PR.
dali/core/geom_mat_test.cu
Outdated
|
|
||
| TEST(MatTest, identity_matrix) { | ||
| mat3 three_by_three = {{ | ||
| {1, 0, 0}, | ||
| {0, 1, 0}, | ||
| {0, 0, 1} | ||
| }}; | ||
| mat3x1 three_by_one = {{ | ||
| {1},{0},{0} // NOLINT | ||
| }}; | ||
| mat3x2 three_by_two = {{ | ||
| {1, 0}, | ||
| {0, 1}, | ||
| {0, 0}, | ||
| }}; | ||
| auto m1 = eye<3, int>(); | ||
| auto m2 = eye<3, 1, int>(); | ||
| auto m3 = eye<3, 2, int>(); | ||
| EXPECT_EQ(m1, three_by_three); | ||
| EXPECT_EQ(m2, three_by_one); | ||
| EXPECT_EQ(m3, three_by_two); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
I don't really agree, that
Note: I have no idea, if you can do Clearly, more common approach is the OpenCV-like, i.e. constructor generates matrix with all elements set to given value. It gives consistency between matrix-type and vector-type (GLSL doesn't contain such ctor for vector). Therefore in my opinion, our mat constructor should follow OpenCV approach. Getting back to the Lastly, how does it hurt? |
Signed-off-by: Michał Szołucha <mszolucha@nvidia.com>
|
!build |
|
CI MESSAGE: [930370]: BUILD STARTED |
|
CI MESSAGE: [930370]: BUILD FAILED |
|
!build |
|
CI MESSAGE: [930398]: BUILD STARTED |
|
CI MESSAGE: [930398]: BUILD FAILED |
|
!build |
|
CI MESSAGE: [930529]: BUILD STARTED |
|
CI MESSAGE: [930529]: BUILD PASSED |
Why we need this PR?
Because we have LinearTransformationGpu kernel. That's for consistency