> I believe this is a result of strange inference by the compiler. You
> should double-check my explanation here, I'm not 100% sure that it is
> correct, but my gut feeling is that it is…
It looks like there is some other reason. I got the same error when I tried the
following
template<typename T>
void g(const T&)
{
const T& ref = arma::join_rows(arma::zeros(2).t(), arma::zeros(2).t());
arma::mat m = ref;
}
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(RefTest4)
{
g(arma::join_rows(arma::zeros(2).t(), arma::zeros(2).t()));
}
Best regards,
Kirill Mishchenko
> On 27 Jun 2017, at 19:41, Ryan Curtin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:10:06AM +0500, Kirill Mishchenko wrote:
>> Hi mlpack community!
>>
>> I’m not sure it is a right place to ask a question that I want to ask,
>> but, anyway, maybe somebody will be eager to answer. Otherwise, just
>> ignore this message.
>>
>> I have encountered some unexpected behaviour with the Armadillo
>> library. The following code snippet works as expected:
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> void f(const T& arg)
>> {
>> arma::mat m = arg;
>> }
>>
>> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(RefTest)
>> {
>> f(arma::join_rows(arma::zeros(2).t(), arma::zeros(2).t()));
>> }
>>
>> But if I run the following
>>
>> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(RefTest2)
>> {
>> const auto& ref = arma::join_rows(arma::zeros(2).t(), arma::zeros(2).t());
>> arma::mat m = ref;
>> }
>>
>> I get this error:
>>
>> unknown location:0: fatal error: in "ArmaExtendTest/RefTest2": memory
>> access violation at address: 0x00000000: no mapping at fault address
>>
>> Surprisingly, if run the following code snippet
>>
>> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(RefTest3)
>> {
>> const auto& ref = arma::join_rows(arma::zeros(2), arma::zeros(2));
>> arma::mat m = ref;
>> }
>>
>> everything is ok again.
>>
>> Are there any thoughts why I observe such behaviour?
>
> I believe this is a result of strange inference by the compiler. You
> should double-check my explanation here, I'm not 100% sure that it is
> correct, but my gut feeling is that it is...
>
> Armadillo does lazy evaluation at compile time, so if you do, e.g., mat
> + mat, the type returned is not 'mat' but instead a type that represents
> that two matrices should be added. If you're interested I actually just
> gave a talk on this yesterday, here are the slides:
>
> http://www.ratml.org/presentation.pdf <http://www.ratml.org/presentation.pdf>
>
> Anyway, I think that the C++ compiler will infer strange things for
> 'auto' types, and as a result if you try to use auto with Armadillo, you
> can end up with bizarre results, and it's often better to avoid it if
> possible.
>
> Hope this is helpful... let me know if I can clarify anything.
>
> --
> Ryan Curtin | "If it's something that can be stopped, then just try to
> stop it!"
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | - Skull Kid
_______________________________________________
mlpack mailing list
[email protected]
http://knife.lugatgt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlpack
