On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:37, Paul Mullowney <paulm at txcorp.com> wrote:
> There is some level of reusability between the matrix type data > structures, especially for CSR storage. For other matrix storage formats, > like ELLPACK where the performance gain can be substantial, CUSPARSE uses > an opaque data structure. CUSP does not. > > So, I agree that it's wrong to mix CUSP and CUSPARSE implementations. At > some level I think it's wrong to be so hooked into CUSP and have all the > files named after CUSP. > Whose choice was it to stuff CUSPARSE into the CUSP implementation? > This is especially true since the evidence I'm gathering suggests that > CUSPARSE is the better choice for SpMV and TriSolve. > > Meanwhile, CUSP is the right choice for various preconditioners, ... > Preconditioners can make copies. > So much complexity! Perhaps, a discussion on redesign is necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120308/edc11827/attachment.html>
