std.parallelism: Request for Review

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:53:56 +0000, 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.

Too late. :)

-Lars