On 2014-01-29 15:56, Anders Logg wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:31:10PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
A long thread has been mulling over the build system consequences of
merging FFC and UFC into one 'package':
http://fenicsproject.org/pipermail/fenics/2014-January/000896.html
The crux of it is the different build systems used by FFC (Python
distutils) and UFC (CMake). UFC uses CMake because of the dependency
on boost::shared_ptr.
If we were to switch to std::shared_ptr, using distutils for both
FFC and UFC should be straightforward. However, std::shared_ptr is
part of the C++11 standard and would require a compiler that
supports at least the std::shared_ptr part of the standard.
The question therefore is should we switch from boost::shared_ptr to
std::shared_ptr in DOLFIN? To start things off:
* Pros:
- Makes FFC and UFC packaging simple
- Use system provided STL (shared_ptr, unordered_set,
unordered_set, etc)
- We can start using other useful C++ features from the new
standard, e.g. auto:
for (std::vector<<<..............> > >::const_iterator itr =
myvec.cbegin(); itr != myvec.cend(); ++itr)
becomes
for (auto itr = myvec.cbegin(); itr != myvec.cend(); ++itr)
* Cons
- Lack of C++11 support in old compilers. This is unlikely to be a
problem on desktops. Any issues are most likely to be on older
clusters. It does appear that std::shared_ptr has been available for
major compilers (GCC/Clang/Intel/IBM/Microsoft) for quite some
years.
I support switching to std::shared_ptr and look forward to using
auto.
Ok. I'll drop some small C++11 'testers' in the code and we can see if
they cause any issues for users of dolfin/master.
Garth
--
Anders
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
