You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The FFT planning functions, plan_fft et al., accept a keyword argument flags that is used to provide options to the planning function of the FFT implementation. The flags argument is currently documented to be "a bitwise-or of FFTW planner flags". This effectively creates a documented dependency on FFTW, even though FFTW is not a dependency of AbstractFFTs (in fact it's the other way around). It would be preferable to have AbstractFFTs define any and all flags that FFT planners may wish to use and then have FFT implementations, such as FFTW, adapt the flags from AbstractFFTs values to suitable values for use with the underlying implementation as they see fit.
For an example of why the current approach is problematic, see JuliaGPU/CUDA.jl#1559
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The FFT planning functions,
plan_fft
et al., accept a keyword argumentflags
that is used to provide options to the planning function of the FFT implementation. Theflags
argument is currently documented to be "a bitwise-or of FFTW planner flags". This effectively creates a documented dependency on FFTW, even though FFTW is not a dependency of AbstractFFTs (in fact it's the other way around). It would be preferable to have AbstractFFTs define any and all flags that FFT planners may wish to use and then have FFT implementations, such as FFTW, adapt the flags from AbstractFFTs values to suitable values for use with the underlying implementation as they see fit.For an example of why the current approach is problematic, see JuliaGPU/CUDA.jl#1559
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: