On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 05:26:48PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On 23 September 2011 17:21, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:50:33PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> On 22 September 2011 12:46, Johannes Ring <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Johannes Ring <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> On 21 September 2011 11:55, Johannes Ring <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>>> On 21 September 2011 11:06, Johannes Ring <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> > >> >>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> A while ago, we used some Boost MPI but then removed it because of > >> >>>>>>> some older systems lack support. Could we start using it now? I > >> >>>>>>> would > >> >>>>>>> like to. It would make some parallel things a lot simpler. Would > >> >>>>>>> the > >> >>>>>>> buildbots need to be updated? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Yes, some of them would need an update. Also, we would no longer be > >> >>>>>> able to provide packages for Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, which is by far the > >> >>>>>> Ubuntu version with the most downloads from the PPA. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> OK, so the decision is whether or not to continue support for 10.04. > >> >>>>> Since I don't use 10.04 but I do use MPI, I vote for ditching 10.04 > >> >>>>> and using Boost MPI. A compromise would be to use Boost MPI, and not > >> >>>>> provide parallel support in the 10.04 package. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> How do we deal with Swig 2 in 10.04? Or is it not required since the > >> >>>>> wrappers have already been generated? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I have backported SWIG 2.0 to Lucid. > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> OK, what about backporting Boost too? There are a few PPAs already, > >> >>> e.g. > >> >>> > >> >>> https://launchpad.net/~infie/+archive/boost-1.47 > >> >>> https://launchpad.net/~gezakovacs/+archive/boost > >> >> > >> >> Yes, I will try to backport Boost in my test PPA > >> >> (https://launchpad.net/~johannr/+archive/test-ppa). I am just afraid > >> >> that it will break some of the other packages that depends on the > >> >> older Boost, but I will give it a shot. > >> > > >> > It seems to work out nicely. I only had to rebuild UFC against the new > >> > Boost packages and then everything ran smoothly. > >> > > >> > It will require some work on the buildbots if we start using Boost MPI. > >> > > >> > >> Does anyone else want to throw in an opinion on this? > > > > ok for me. Is the plan to keep the MPI:: utility functions and replace > > the implementation by boost? Or will we be using boost throughout? In > > particular, does it have a replacement for MPI::distribute? > > > > I suggest keeping the functions in MPI.h. > > Boost MPI won't replace MPI::distribute, but it will make the > internals of MPI::distribute simpler and more general (e.g. handle > booleans, which we don't at the moment because they need to be treated > as a special case). > > The two big advantages of Boost MPI are > > 1. It's templated, so we don't need *4+* versions of each function > (uint, int, double, bool, . . .) > 2. It can handle various C++ STL objects seamlessly. > > When do we want to start?
What about speed compared to vanilla MPI? -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
