Conversation
This was referenced Sep 19, 2026
Closed
Owner
Author
|
I thought for a little while that FftNd should just inherit from Fft because the APIs are identical, but I realized that they're the same syntactically, but are different semantically. If you have an object of type |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
2d FFTs, 3d FFTs, n-d FFTs, now a first class feature of rustFFT. Constructed through the planner, stored as an Arc, executed through an interface almost exactly the same as the current single-dimension FFT trait.
Right now there's only one algorithm: Transpose once per dimension, execute FFTs contiguously. But I did it through the planner because I can imagine doing something like, if one of the non-contiguous FFTs is the size of a butterfly, then the various SIMD backends could switch to a different algorithm that leaves it strided and executes parallel column FFTs. Or maybe it'll turn out that leaving it strided and copying to a local buffer for execution and immediately back is faster for some sizes, so we have 2 algorithms, one strided and one that tranposes.
This doesn't do any of that yet but it leaves the door open. I haven't done any benchmarking yet, and I'd like to implement a strided algorithm and compare the two before I merge this, and maybe do a comparison with fftw
I'd like to hear feedback anyone has on API. naming, etc, as well as just a normal review of the code.