On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 03:52:17PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Joachim B Haga wrote:
"Martin Sandve Alnæs" <martinal@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
2008/11/2 Joachim B Haga <jobh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Saturday 01 November 2008 17:10:09 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
2008/11/1 Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>:
So if we remove
mutable Cell* _cell
mutable int _facet
from the private member data of Function, does this resolve the
biggest design issue for running multi-threaded?
Yes. Otherwise the threads will overwrite each others current cell all
the time.
If you can get away with making these variables static, thread-local
variables (storage class __thread) is simpler.
But static... That sounds very limiting.
Perhaps. In that case, I'd suggest just letting each thread have its own
instance of any mutable classes, if that's possible.
Isn't Martin's suggestion that the necessary data be passed to the eval
function much simpler?
Garth
Yes, the implementation would be much simpler, but it would be
inconvenient if all user-defined functions must be defined with all the
arguments:
void eval(double* values, double* x, const Cell& cell, uint facet, ...)
We could introduce a new class Data (or similar) that contains x and
possibly a lot of other stuff:
void eval(double* values, const Data& data)
{
values[0] = sin(data.x[0]);
}
The data variable can have member functions cell(), facet() etc.
