std.parallelism: Request for Review

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Fri Mar 4 13:44:38 PST 2011


On Friday, March 04, 2011 12:53:56 dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Lars T. Kyllingstad (public at kyllingen.NOSPAMnet)'s article
> 
> > 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
> 
> But then official "judgement day" will be April Fool's Day. I don't want
> anyone thinking std.parallelism is an April Fool's joke.

LOL. That was my though exactly, though I doubt that anyone will really take it 
that way.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list