You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
_get(Vec) and _get(Mat) should not allocate memory internally #18
_get(Vec) and _get(Mat) currently allocate the output array, but the user aware of what the array size needs to be, should change the output semantics so the memory allocation happens in user-space. Both for simplicity in terms of memory ownership and so the same array can be used to retrieve values multiple times since that is much more efficient.
changed the title [-]_get(Vec) and _get(Mat) currently allocate the output array, but the user aware of what the array size needs to be, should change the output semantics so the memory allocation happens in user-space. Both for simplicity in terms of memory ownership and so the same array can be used to retrieve values multiple times since that is much more efficient.[/-][+]_get(Vec) and _get(Mat) should not allocate memory internally[/+]on May 3, 2018
should the interface change from _get(XXX, ..... , scalar ** vals) to _get(XXX, ....., scalar * vals) since the user in now responsible for allocating the output array?
Activity
[-]_get(Vec) and _get(Mat) currently allocate the output array, but the user aware of what the array size needs to be, should change the output semantics so the memory allocation happens in user-space. Both for simplicity in terms of memory ownership and so the same array can be used to retrieve values multiple times since that is much more efficient.[/-][+]_get(Vec) and _get(Mat) should not allocate memory internally[/+]wrtobin commentedon May 3, 2018
should the interface change from
_get(XXX, ..... , scalar ** vals)to_get(XXX, ....., scalar * vals)since the user in now responsible for allocating the output array?this would reduce ambiguity