[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm
From: |
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso |
Subject: |
Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 22:27:13 -0500 |
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 12:40 +0530, Mudit Sharma wrote:
> >For example, how much more work is there before the `mft_test` command
> >available here passes on Octave? How about making it pass with speed
> >comparable to Matlab?
>
> Does this mean writing the mft toolbox scripts as C codes?
> Since speed is achieved easily by it.
Well, it would be C++, not C, since we don't generally do C. But
regardless, does it already work at all with Octave code? I tried for
a few minutes with what I could find and it didn't work. Did you make
it work?
- Jordi G. H.
- Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm, Marco Caliari, 2016/03/03
- Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm, Mudit Sharma, 2016/03/09
- Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm,
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <=
- Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm, Mudit Sharma, 2016/03/11
- Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2016/03/17
- Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm, Mudit Sharma, 2016/03/20
- Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm, PhilipNienhuis, 2016/03/20
- Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm, Mudit Sharma, 2016/03/22
GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm, amr mohamed, 2016/03/11