Zach,

Remove the signum argument from the argument to LU-decomp. That is, it should be defined (defmfun LU-decomp (A p) ...) Then everything will work as desired; signum will be returned from this function. Let me know if it works and I'll check that change in. Note there is no :pointer confusion and defmfun does all the wrapping necessary; look at the macroexpansion and definition of defmfun to see how it works.

All of GSLL was written by me, save for the docstrings that came from the GSL documentation, and those were edited by me for style, grammar, and to fit GSLL. I'm sure a few errors like this one crept in. Many I caught with regression tests, but I don't have a test for LU-decomp. If you have a fairly simple example/test with LU-decomp post it and I will include it in the code.

Thanks, Liam

On 3/10/08, Zach elzacho@gmail.com wrote:

It looks like the definition of lu-decomp (linear-algebra/lu.lisp) is incorrect. Instead of (signum :int) it should read (signum :pointer), right? My code (see below) works with this change, but not without it (it complains that the pointer isn't a fixnum). However, signum is really just a return value of the function, depending on how high level this should all be, we may want to write a wrapper that allocates that memory and passes it back as a second value. But then we would have to worry about memory leaks (since the GC won't free the memory, right?) Further, this `function' really just modifies it's arguments. I guess the Lisp way would be to change this into a function that returns the modified structures and mark it as a destructive function... It is hard for me to make Lisp style and C style coexist in my head.

How were the GSL definitions generated? How did this :int :pointer confusion slip through? If the point here is to make a system where mathematics can be done interactively, i.e. (invert-matrix #2A((1 0) (3 4))) ==> #2A(...), then a big part of this is going to be making wrapper functions that hide the C like nuts and bolts that make GSL a bit annoying to use in the first place.

(defun invert-matrix (mat) (gsl:letm ((mat2 (gsl:matrix-double mat)) (per (gsl:permutation 2)) (inv (gsl:matrix-double 2 2)) (sig (cffi:foreign-alloc :int :count 1)) ) (gsl:lu-decomp mat2 per sig) (gsl:lu-invert mat2 per inv) (cffi:foreign-free sig) (gsl:data inv) ))

How can I get rid of the explicit foreign-alloc/free? Is this outside of the scope of GSLL (seems like a border case to me).

Thanks, Zach

---

Gsll-devel mailing list Gsll-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsll-devel