<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:37, Paul Mullowney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paulm@txcorp.com">paulm@txcorp.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">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.<br>
<br>
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.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Whose choice was it to stuff CUSPARSE into the CUSP implementation?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> This is
especially true since the evidence I'm gathering suggests that
CUSPARSE is the better choice for SpMV and TriSolve. <br>
<br>
Meanwhile, CUSP is the right choice for various preconditioners, ...
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Preconditioners can make copies.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
So much complexity! Perhaps, a discussion on redesign is necessary.</div></blockquote></div>