dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:22:12AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:32:11AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> >> We have discussed briefly in the past changing from unsigned int
>> >> (typedef uint) to std::size_t. Starting to solve some really big
>> >> problems and some changes in Trilinos make it a good time to bring
>> >> this up again. Any thoughts or objections to moving to std::size_t
>> >> from uint?
>> >
>> > I think this would be a good idea.
>> >
>>
>> I've started making some unsigned int -> std::size_t changes as I
>> restructure mesh partitioning.
>>
>> > I suggest we keep the uint typedef and make it point to size_t.
>> >
>>
>> I think we should use std::size_t and not uint. std::size_t is already
>> a typedef and it conveys an intention: big enough for the largest
>> array that can be allocated on a machine.  Also, it's not a question
>> of unsigned int or std::size_t - there are places for both.
>
> So we will keep dolfin::uint for stuff like component indices and
> other small integers, and use size_t for everything that can
> potentially be large?
>

Yes. I lean towards using 'unsigned int' instead of 'dolfin::uint'.

> How about the Mesh? Should we use size_t for stuff like mesh
> connectivity?
>

If it can potentially be big, then it should be std::size_t.

Garth

> --
> Anders