On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:53:56 +0000, dsimcha wrote: > == Quote from Lars T. Kyllingstad (public@kyllingen.NOSPAMnet)'s article >> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:34:39 +0000, dsimcha wrote: >> > == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@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