Skip to content

Conversation

j-fu
Copy link
Contributor

@j-fu j-fu commented Jan 24, 2023

Doesn't work for Duals in the moment

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 24, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #263 (fc4ae65) into main (fa64510) will decrease coverage by 17.59%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     JuliaLang/julia#263       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   70.27%   52.68%   -17.59%     
===========================================
  Files          14       14               
  Lines         841      837        -4     
===========================================
- Hits          591      441      -150     
- Misses        250      396      +146     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/iterative_wrappers.jl 55.15% <100.00%> (-22.17%) ⬇️
src/factorization_sparse.jl 0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%) ⬇️
src/factorization.jl 44.93% <0.00%> (-38.19%) ⬇️
src/preconditioners.jl 60.00% <0.00%> (-26.67%) ⬇️
src/default.jl 35.06% <0.00%> (-12.99%) ⬇️
src/common.jl 88.13% <0.00%> (-1.70%) ⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@j-fu
Copy link
Contributor Author

j-fu commented Jan 24, 2023

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

I don't think we want to do this approach. Instead, we should do an approach like https://github.com/SciML/NonlinearSolve.jl/blob/master/src/ad.jl where an overload catches the floats and just makes BLAS solve the problem in Float64s by appropriately reinterpreting. That would be faster than using the BLAS fallbacks.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Dual number support needs to happen differently, but the rest is fine? Can you rebase this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants