Just the fact that it's a systems-ish module and therefore is more susceptible to changes in CPU architecture than other stuff. Also, it depends on core.atomic, which is even more systems-ish and hasn't been tested on 64 AFAIK.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Steve Schveighoffer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:schveiguy@yahoo.com">schveiguy@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div>Just a comment on 64-bit support, you could say that about any module in phobos :)<br><br>My recommendation is to just include it when you feel it's good enough, and we'll deal with 64-bit when we get there. Or are there specific 64-bit problems that you envision that will affect the design?<br>
<br>BTW, I haven't looked at the module, but it seems like a nifty idea.<br><br>-Steve<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><div class="im"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> David Simcha <<a href="mailto:dsimcha@gmail.com" target="_blank">dsimcha@gmail.com</a>><br>
</div><div class="im"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Discuss the phobos library for D <<a href="mailto:phobos@puremagic.com" target="_blank">phobos@puremagic.com</a>><br></div><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tue, August 31, 2010 9:42:59 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [phobos] std.parallelism: Request for review/comment<br></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
I really want good reviews from Sean (threading guru) and Andrei (general design guru) before this gets into Phobos. Otherwise I feel like scientific computing people (like us) might be the only people that find this module to be any good. Also, no matter what, I'm probably going to wait until after the next release to check it in, because I want to test it thoroughly on 64, and I can't do that w/o a 64 compiler.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:lars@kyllingen.net" target="_blank">lars@kyllingen.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I ran my calculation on an 8-core at work, by the way, and it was very enjoyable to see a manyfold speed-up just by changing a few lines of code.<br><br>We should definitely get this into Phobos.<br><br>-Lars<br><br>----- Reply message -----<br>
From: "David Simcha" <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:dsimcha@gmail.com" target="_blank">dsimcha@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Tue, Aug 31, 2010 14:13<br>Subject: [phobos] std.parallelism: Request for review/comment<br>
To: "Discuss the phobos library for D" <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:phobos@puremagic.com" target="_blank">phobos@puremagic.com</a>><div>
<div></div><div><br><br> On 8/31/2010 6:22 AM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad wrote:<br>> Point (3) is pretty cool. I just used your module for my current<br>> project at work, and the ability to get the index made the code a lot<br>
> nicer.<br>><br>> Another question: Why have you chosen the default number of work units<br>> to be just two units per thread? In my experience, it's not uncommon<br>> that calculations are harder on some parts of the range than others, and<br>
> then there is a risk of some cores running out of work to do. I'd think<br>> that having more work units, 3-4 per thread, say, would allow for better<br>> distribution of work between cores.<br>><br>> -Lars<br>
<br>Good point. I should probably change this, as the more I think about it <br>the more I realize that I never use the default for the reason you <br>mention. It seemed like a good idea in iteration 1, and then I just <br>
never reconsidered.<br></div></div><div><div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>phobos mailing list<br><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:phobos@puremagic.com" target="_blank">phobos@puremagic.com</a><br>
<span>
<a href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos" target="_blank">http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos</a></span><br><br><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
phobos mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:phobos@puremagic.com" target="_blank">phobos@puremagic.com</a><br>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos" target="_blank">http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos</a><br></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote>
</div><br>
</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
phobos mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:phobos@puremagic.com">phobos@puremagic.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos" target="_blank">http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos</a><br></blockquote></div><br>