Dspies
Joined 4 March 2014
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
This fails with an OOM because it wasn't considered when writing max <br /> | This fails with an OOM because it wasn't considered when writing max <br /> | ||
This sort of aggregate function (over the rows) can be done in O(min(h+nnz, nnz*log(w))) time, but one would have to implement the algorithm for each of the above-mentioned 7 functions. By consolidating these into one templated function, it'll make it worth the effort to implement.</p> | This sort of aggregate function (over the rows) can be done in O(min(h+nnz, nnz*log(w))) time, but one would have to implement the algorithm for each of the above-mentioned 7 functions. By consolidating these into one templated function, it'll make it worth the effort to implement.</p> | ||
* | * The changes I made in https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8417 need to be added and need to be modified to accomodate diagonal matrices as well. The fact that the original implementer of find neglected to handle diagonal matrices should be evidence enough that the ad-hoc approach doesn't work. |