This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
RE: gsl matrix
- To: "Brian Gough" <bjg at network-theory dot co dot uk>
- Subject: RE: gsl matrix
- From: "J.J. Gomez Cadenas" <gomez at hal dot ific dot uv dot es>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:41:50 +0200
- Cc: <gsl-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
Dear Brian, all,
As suspected that cure of the problem was easy enough. Simply adding an
empty constructor within a #ifdef __cpluplus will do it.
I have know a version with this patch added to all the relevant header files
(there are quite a few!!!). I'd be pleased, of course, to send it to you, or
to committ it to the repository, or whatever. Please tell me what you
prefer.
Right now I have implemented a c++ real matrix class whith the basic
functionality (all the standar operations in the matrix ring). It works
fine, is cute, is fast and it's amazingly simple (just one private attribute
a pointer to a gsl_matrix!). Next steps will be to create a complex matrix
class (perhaps also integer) plus the corresponding classes for vectors and
some linear algebra. All this, of course would be also available for whoever
interested.
Best, jj
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Brian Gough [mailto:bjg@network-theory.co.uk]
Enviado el: viernes, 03 de agosto de 2001 19:44
Para: Juan Jose Gomez Cadenas
CC: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
Asunto: Re: gsl matrix
Juan Jose Gomez Cadenas writes:
> cd ../i386_linux22/; g++ -c -I"/home/jj/Packages/PMatrix/v1"
> -I"../../../GSL/v1/src" -I"usr/local/include" -I"../../../NAGC/v6/src"
> -I"/home/jj/Packages/NAGC/v6" -I"/home/jj/Software/NAGC/6.0/include"
> -Df2cFortran -D__cplusplus -DHAVE_INLINE -fPIC -shared -D_GNU_SOURCE
> -Dlinux -DLINUX -Dunix -pipe -ansi -Wall -W -D_GNU_SOURCE -o
> MatrixMachine.o ../src/MatrixMachine.cpp
> /usr/local/include/gsl/gsl_vector_long_double.h:58: warning: non-static
> const member `const
> gsl_vector_long_double {anonymous union}::vector' in class without a
> constructorIn file included from
I found that the error doesn't occur with g++-3.0, but does with g++ < 3.0.
I don't know if that means that the message was removed deliberately,
or if it is just missing from g++ 3.0 and will be put back in later.
Anyway I just thought I would mention it.