freepooma-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] kill POOMA_REORDER_ITERATES


From: Jeffrey D. Oldham
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill POOMA_REORDER_ITERATES
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:57:08 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5

Richard Guenther wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Jeffrey D. Oldham wrote:

Richard Guenther wrote:

===== r2/src/Pooma/Pooma.cmpl.cpp 1.3 vs edited =====
--- 1.3/r2/src/Pooma/Pooma.cmpl.cpp     2004-01-17 16:20:23 +01:00
+++ edited/r2/src/Pooma/Pooma.cmpl.cpp  2004-08-16 16:47:24 +02:00
@@ -803,10 +803,6 @@
   SystemContext_t::runSomething();
 }

-# elif POOMA_REORDER_ITERATES
-
-  CTAssert(NO_SUPPORT_FOR_THREADS_WITH_MESSAGING);
-
# else // we're using the serial scheduler, so we only need to get messages

 while (Pooma::incomingMessages())


This change worries me.  Doesn't this change the code's meaning?

Hm.  Looking at the context I suppose not:

#if POOMA_CHEETAH

# if POOMA_SMARTS_SCHEDULER_SERIALASYNC

 typedef Smarts::SystemContext SystemContext_t;

 while (Pooma::incomingMessages() || SystemContext_t::workReady())
 {
   controller_g->poll();
   SystemContext_t::runSomething();
 }

# elif POOMA_REORDER_ITERATES

 CTAssert(NO_SUPPORT_FOR_THREADS_WITH_MESSAGING);

# else // we're using the serial scheduler, so we only need to get
messages

 while (Pooma::incomingMessages())
 {
   controller_g->poll();
 }

# endif // schedulers

#else // !POOMA_CHEETAH

 mainScheduler_s.blockingEvaluate();

#endif // !POOMA_CHEETAH


I think the check for POOMA_REORDER_ITERATES was bogous, as for
POOMA_SMARTS_SCHEDULER_SERIALASYNC it would have been true and
in the other case (!POOMA_SMARTS_SCHEDULER_SERIALASYNC) not set
anyways.  To check for threads here would need checking POOMA_THREADS
(smarts support) or POOMA_OPENMP (OpenMP support), but this checking
is already done at configure time.

Also I believe using Cheetah (MPI) with the serial scheduler does not work
at all.
I guess it's OK.

--
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]