std.parallelism: Request for Review

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:34:39 +0000, dsimcha wrote:

> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s
> article
>> On 3/4/11 5:32 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:23:43 +0000, dsimcha wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ok, so that's one issue to cross off the list.  To summarize the
>> >> discussion so far, most of it's revolved around the issue of
>> >> automatically determining how many CPUs are available and therefore
>> >> how many threads the default pool should have. Previously,
>> >> std.parallelism had been using core.cpuid for this task.  This
>> >> module doesn't work yet on 64 bits and doesn't and isn't supposed to
>> >> determine how many sockets/physical CPUs are available.  This was a
>> >> point of miscommunication.
>> >>
>> >> std.parallelism now uses OS-specific APIs to determine the total
>> >> number of cores available across all physical CPUs.  This appears to
>> >> Just Work (TM) on 32-bit Windows, 32- and 64-bit Linux, and 32-bit
>> >> Mac OS.
>> >>
>> >> We still need a volunteer to manage the review process.  As a
>> >> reminder, for those of you who have been meaning to have a look but
>> >> haven't, the Git repository is at:
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism
>> >>
>> >> The pre-compiled documentation is at:
>> >>
>> >> http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
>> >
>> > I'll volunteer as the review manager.
>> >
>> > Since the module has been through a few reviews already, both in this
>> > group and on the Phobos mailing list, I don't think we need a lot
>> > more time for that.  I suggest the following:
>> >
>> > - We give it one more week for the final review, starting today, 4
>> > March. - If this review does not lead to major API changes, we start
>> > the vote next Friday, 11 March.  Vote closes after one week, 18
>> > March.
>> >
>> > How does this sound?
>> >
>> > -Lars
>> I suggest let's make the review three weeks and the vote one week.
>> Andrei
> 
> This sounds reasonable.

3+1 weeks it is, then.  I'll announce it in a separate thread.

-Lars