Karl Rupp <r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at> writes: > copy() is available for stability, fast_copy() for performance. I don't > think we should provide a fast_copy() which silently throws away > performance just for the sake of stability. I expect that a user wants > to get some sort of error if the 'performance version' does not work.
Why not have copy() use fast_copy() where possible, falling back to its current code path if fast_copy() throws an error? Are there cases where fast_copy() really is just plain inappropriate, that it's not possible to determine in an automated way? Best, Toby ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ ViennaCL-devel mailing list ViennaCL-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/viennacl-devel
