On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > I've started adding support for using this library for memory primitives > and some basic lock-free data structures. > > > > http://concurrencykit.org/ > > > > Of course when threads are not used, we need some replacement. All the > memory barriers and assignments become trivial and locks disappear so the > no-threading variant is trivial to implement. My question now is whether to > call ck_* functions directly from PETSc source or to always wrap them in > Petsc* namespaced macros and inline functions. > > > > I would normally always use a Petsc namespace for this kind of thing, > but this library has convenient man pages and is, I think, the best thing > out there for implementing these primitives. Wrapping everything in a > Petsc* namespace would thus make it less direct to get down to the actual > semantics (or a man page). Thus I have half a mind to treat it like MPI and > just provide non-threaded implementations in petscck.h when > !defined(PETSC_HAVE_CONCURRENCYKIT). Is this a bad idea? > > I can live with it. You, of course, are providing a --download-ck before > writing a single line of code that uses ck. I agree. Useless wrappers (TaoVec, TrilinosCommStuff) just clutter code and do not expand functionality. What is your opinion of the longevity of support? Will we end up supporting this library? Matt > > Barry > > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130219/143a6878/attachment.html>
