On 30/11/10 22:37, Johan Hake wrote:
On Tuesday November 30 2010 14:30:18 Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 30/11/10 22:25, Anders Logg wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:20:52PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
We have a thread-safe problem in GenericFunction with the member object
mutable Data data;
Any ideas on how to get rid of it? We really should pass data
through the function interfaces, but we're constrained in this case
by the UFC interface.
This is ironical, as Data was introduced so we in the future (now present)
could be thread safe...
Really? I remember Martin always warning against such a design because
it's not thread-safe.
But I do not think GenericFunction was a ufc::function
at that time.
Is it time to introduce the notion of thread in the ufc interface?
Not for this purpose. What would be helpful is a way to pass
user-defined data through the UFC interface. Perhaps more importantly,
we should avoid using 'mutable'. A 'const' object should in principle be
thread-safe, but using mutable clouds this.
Garth
Johan
Is it possible to have a pool of Data objects and have each thread
select the proper one:
data[thread_id]
That's messy because the Data object is buried deep in the code.
I think that we should avoid this design (private scratch space) and try
to figure out an alternative. I removed the private scratch from
Function the other day.
--
Anders
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
