On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:22:12AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:32:11AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >> We have discussed briefly in the past changing from unsigned int >> >> (typedef uint) to std::size_t. Starting to solve some really big >> >> problems and some changes in Trilinos make it a good time to bring >> >> this up again. Any thoughts or objections to moving to std::size_t >> >> from uint? >> > >> > I think this would be a good idea. >> > >> >> I've started making some unsigned int -> std::size_t changes as I >> restructure mesh partitioning. >> >> > I suggest we keep the uint typedef and make it point to size_t. >> > >> >> I think we should use std::size_t and not uint. std::size_t is already >> a typedef and it conveys an intention: big enough for the largest >> array that can be allocated on a machine. Also, it's not a question >> of unsigned int or std::size_t - there are places for both. > > So we will keep dolfin::uint for stuff like component indices and > other small integers, and use size_t for everything that can > potentially be large? >
Yes. I lean towards using 'unsigned int' instead of 'dolfin::uint'. > How about the Mesh? Should we use size_t for stuff like mesh > connectivity? > If it can potentially be big, then it should be std::size_t. Garth > -- > Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
