On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 09:33:01PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Anders Logg <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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'.
Why? To minimize internal typedefs? > > 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. Is the assumption that global dof numbers need size_t while for local entity indices (to a process) it's enough with uint? -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
