Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Stabilize DoubleSym #42

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Feb 6, 2018
Merged

Stabilize DoubleSym #42

merged 14 commits into from
Feb 6, 2018

Conversation

klensink
Copy link
Contributor

@klensink klensink commented Feb 3, 2018

No description provided.


dth1 = JthetaTmv(this.K,dAZ,zeros(T,0),Y)
KopZ = Amv(this.K, th1, Z)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@eldadHaber @lruthotto How attached are you two to the idea of have getOp return a LinearOperator? We find that the LinearOperator does not return a type stable result, even though the prod function it calls is stable.

I'm not sure what is confusing the compiler, but just skipping the LinearOperator and calling the function as done here on line 201 fixed the issue. Do you have any problem with us doing this?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not too attached to it although it makes the code more readable. If this is a problem with the LinearOperator package and you can reproduce this easily it might be worth reporting it there.

@DavidBegert
Copy link
Contributor

Probably just need to add Juno to the require file to make the tests pass

@klensink
Copy link
Contributor Author

klensink commented Feb 5, 2018 via email

if doDerivative
dA .= one(T) .- A.^2
else
fill!(dA, zero(T))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Dunno if theres a performance diff between this and just creating it as a 2-D array of zeros as on the left. We know that the return will be 2 dimensional so unsure if this is needed xo

@DavidBegert DavidBegert merged commit 7f751d5 into dev Feb 6, 2018
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 6, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.04%) to 78.096% when pulling de6680d on doublesym into 547478b on dev.

@klensink klensink deleted the doublesym branch February 14, 2018 21:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants