On Friday, March 04, 2011 12:53:56 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.
LOL. That was my though exactly, though I doubt that anyone will really take it that way. - Jonathan M Davis