[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [pooma-dev] Explicit Instantiation Question
|
From: |
Dave Nystrom |
|
Subject: |
RE: [pooma-dev] Explicit Instantiation Question |
|
Date: |
Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:40:11 -0600 |
|
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) CLIME/1.13.6 (中 ノ庄) MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 14) (Cuyahoga Valley) (i386-redhat-linux) |
Hi Jim and Scott,
Jim's idea works great. I made the changes in NewField/Field.h and it
eliminated 3000+ templates that the Blanca source code was instantiating.
The changes only take about 5 minutes to make. Could someone make them to
the repository version of Pooma 2 that Blanca is using?
Thanks to Jim for taking the time to look at the code and figure this out.
Thanks,
Dave Nystrom email: address@hidden
LANL X-3 phone: 505-667-7913 fax: 505-665-3046
James Crotinger writes:
> I've mentioned before that sv is probably not used anywhere and that it was
> pretty clearly just added for clarity in the class definition. Is there any
> reason not to remove it completely? That is, we currently have something
> like (this is a bit old, but I don't think this stuff has changed):
>
> // Deduce appropriate version of implementation to dispatch to.
>
> static const bool sv = DomainTraits<SDomain_t>::singleValued;
> typedef View1Implementation<Subject_t, SDomain_t, sv> Dispatch_t;
>
> // The optimized domain combiner.
>
> typedef CombineDomainOpt<NewDomain_t, sv> Combine_t;
>
>
> This can be changed to the more unwieldly
>
> // Deduce appropriate version of implementation to dispatch to.
>
> typedef View1Implementation<Subject_t, SDomain_t,
> DomainTraits<SDomain_t>::singleValued> Dispatch_t;
>
> // The optimized domain combiner.
>
> typedef CombineDomainOpt<NewDomain_t,
> DomainTraits<SDomain_t>::singleValued> Combine_t;
>
> Then "sv" won't have to be instantiated at all since it won't exist anymore.
> sv is public, but I think that was an oversight - I don't think anyone ever
> uses View1<blah>::sv.
>
> Jim
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Nystrom [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:08 PM
> > To: pooma-dev
> > Subject: [pooma-dev] Explicit Instantiation Question
> >
> >
> > Here is another try at sending my email. I am trying again
> > to speed up our
> > compiles because it has been taking way too long on b18, the
> > SGI machine we
> > are doing our classified development on. John and I have
> > made some good
> > progress on that by getting shared libraries working on b18
> > and explicitly
> > instantiating all the Pooma2 assign functions in a special
> > library package
> > that only needs to be rebuilt when we change Pooma 2.
> >
> > In the process of doing that, I have revisited the idea of trying to
> > explicitly instantiate the Pooma 2 View1 and AltView1 templates. When
> > Jeffrey was looking at the original problem there with View1
> > which had a
> > circular dependency which was causing a
> > point-of-instantiation problem, he
> > discovered that he could explicitly instantiate the View1
> > template with
> > fairly simple template arguments by first explicitly
> > instantiating the Field
> > class with those same template arguments. Then he figured out how to
> > explicitly instantiate the View1 class by adding the AltView1 class.
> > However, that does not help me because now I have 2000-3000 AltView1
> > templates that I need to instantiate.
> >
> > So, I tried using Jeffreys original solution which I modified
> > to use with the
> > AltView1 template - see the cpp macro
> > INSTANTIATE_VIEW1_AND_FRIENDS below.
> > But, the simple View1.cc file below fails to compile when
> > using KCC 4.0f on
> > Red Hat 7.1 Linux. So, I'm wondering if I am doing the right
> > thing in my cpp
> > macro - KCC seems to think not. Also, I'm wondering if I
> > need to explicitly
> > instantiate the whole Field class or just 1 or 2 methods of
> > the Field class.
> > I think that Jeffrey might be the best person to answer this question
> > although others who are intimately familiar with Pooma 2
> > might be able to
> > also.
> >
> > Bottom line is that I am trying to figure out some way to explicitly
> > instantiate the View1 and AltView1 templates without having
> > to remove the
> > circular dependency which is causing the
> > point-of-instantiation problem.
> >
> > Thanks for any help,
> >
> > Dave Nystrom email: address@hidden
> > LANL X-3 phone: 505-667-7913 fax:
> > 505-665-3046
> >
> > ---------------------------------------Simple View1.cc
> > File-------------------------------------
> > #include "Pooma/NewFields.h"
> >
> > #define INSTANTIATE_VIEW1_AND_FRIENDS(T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP) \
> > template class Field<T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP>; \
> > template
> > AltView1<Field<T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP>,Interval<1> >::sv; \
> > template
> > AltView1<Field<T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP>,Interval<2> >::sv; \
> > template AltView1<Field<T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP>,Interval<3> >::sv;
> >
> > #define T1 UniformRectilinear<(int)2, double, Cartesian<(int)2> >
> > #define T2 Vector<(int)2, double, Full>
> > #define T3 ExpressionTag<BinaryNode<OpAdd,
> > BinaryNode<OpSubtract, BinaryNode<OpMultiply, Scalar<double>,
> > BinaryNode<OpSubtract, BinaryNode<OpAdd,
> > Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2, double,
> > Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2, double, Full>,
> > CompressibleBrickView> >,
> > Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2, double,
> > Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2, double, Full>,
> > CompressibleBrickView> > >, BinaryNode<OpMultiply,
> > Scalar<int>, Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2,
> > double, Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2, double, Full>,
> > CompressibleBrickView> > > > >, BinaryNode<OpMultiply,
> > BinaryNode<OpMultiply, Scalar<double>,
> > Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2, double,
> > Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2, double, Full>,
> > CompressibleBrickView> > >, BinaryNode<OpSubtract,
> > Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2, double,
> > Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2, double, Full>,
> > CompressibleBrickView> >,
> > Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2, double,
> > Cartesian<(int)2> >, !
> > Vector<(int)2, double, Full>, CompressibleBrickView> > > > >,
> > Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2, double,
> > Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2, double, Full>,
> > CompressibleBrickView> > > >
> > INSTANTIATE_VIEW1_AND_FRIENDS(T1,T2,T3)
> > #undef T1
> > #undef T2
> > #undef T3
> >
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2650.12">
> <TITLE>RE: [pooma-dev] Explicit Instantiation Question</TITLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2>I've mentioned before that sv is probably not used anywhere
> and that it was pretty clearly just added for clarity in the class
> definition. Is there any reason not to remove it completely? That is, we
> currently have something like (this is a bit old, but I don't think this
> stuff has changed):</FONT></P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2> // Deduce appropriate version of implementation to
> dispatch to.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> static const bool sv =
> DomainTraits<SDomain_t>::singleValued;</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> typedef View1Implementation<Subject_t, SDomain_t,
> sv> Dispatch_t;</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2> // The optimized domain combiner.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> typedef CombineDomainOpt<NewDomain_t, sv>
> Combine_t;</FONT>
> </P>
> <BR>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2>This can be changed to the more unwieldly</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2> // Deduce appropriate version of implementation to
> dispatch to.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> typedef View1Implementation<Subject_t, SDomain_t,
> DomainTraits<SDomain_t>::singleValued> Dispatch_t;</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2> // The optimized domain combiner.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> typedef CombineDomainOpt<NewDomain_t,
> DomainTraits<SDomain_t>::singleValued> Combine_t; </FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Then "sv" won't have to be instantiated at all
> since it won't exist anymore. sv is public, but I think that was an
> oversight - I don't think anyone ever uses View1<blah>::sv. </FONT></P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2> Jim</FONT>
> </P>
> <BR>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: Dave Nystrom [<A
> HREF="mailto:address@hidden";>mailto:address@hidden</A>]</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:08 PM</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: pooma-dev</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: [pooma-dev] Explicit Instantiation
> Question</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Here is another try at sending my email. I am
> trying again </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to speed up our</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> compiles because it has been taking way too long on
> b18, the </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> SGI machine we</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> are doing our classified development on. John
> and I have </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> made some good</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> progress on that by getting shared libraries working
> on b18 </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and explicitly</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> instantiating all the Pooma2 assign functions in a
> special </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> library package</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> that only needs to be rebuilt when we change Pooma
> 2.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> In the process of doing that, I have revisited the
> idea of trying to</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> explicitly instantiate the Pooma 2 View1 and AltView1
> templates. When</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Jeffrey was looking at the original problem there with
> View1 </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> which had a</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> circular dependency which was causing a </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> point-of-instantiation problem, he</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> discovered that he could explicitly instantiate the
> View1 </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> template with</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> fairly simple template arguments by first explicitly
> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> instantiating the Field</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> class with those same template arguments. Then
> he figured out how to</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> explicitly instantiate the View1 class by adding the
> AltView1 class.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> However, that does not help me because now I have
> 2000-3000 AltView1</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> templates that I need to instantiate.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> So, I tried using Jeffreys original solution which I
> modified </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to use with the</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> AltView1 template - see the cpp macro </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> INSTANTIATE_VIEW1_AND_FRIENDS below.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> But, the simple View1.cc file below fails to compile
> when </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> using KCC 4.0f on</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Red Hat 7.1 Linux. So, I'm wondering if I am
> doing the right </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> thing in my cpp</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> macro - KCC seems to think not. Also, I'm
> wondering if I </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> need to explicitly</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> instantiate the whole Field class or just 1 or 2
> methods of </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the Field class.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I think that Jeffrey might be the best person to
> answer this question</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> although others who are intimately familiar with Pooma
> 2 </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> might be able to</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> also.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Bottom line is that I am trying to figure out some way
> to explicitly</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> instantiate the View1 and AltView1 templates without
> having </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to remove the</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> circular dependency which is causing the </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> point-of-instantiation problem.</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Thanks for any help,</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Dave Nystrom
>
> email: address@hidden</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> LANL X-3
>
> phone:
> 505-667-7913 fax: </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 505-665-3046</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ---------------------------------------Simple View1.cc
> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> File-------------------------------------</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> #include "Pooma/NewFields.h"</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> #define
> INSTANTIATE_VIEW1_AND_FRIENDS(T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP) \</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> template
> class
> Field<T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP>; \</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> template </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>
> AltView1<Field<T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP>,Interval<1> >::sv;
> \</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> template </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>
> AltView1<Field<T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP>,Interval<2> >::sv;
> \</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> template
> AltView1<Field<T1_CPP,T2_CPP,T3_CPP>,Interval<3>
> >::sv;</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> #define T1 UniformRectilinear<(int)2, double,
> Cartesian<(int)2> ></FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> #define T2 Vector<(int)2, double, Full></FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> #define T3 ExpressionTag<BinaryNode<OpAdd,
> </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> BinaryNode<OpSubtract, BinaryNode<OpMultiply,
> Scalar<double>, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> BinaryNode<OpSubtract, BinaryNode<OpAdd, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2,
> double, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2,
> double, Full>, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> CompressibleBrickView> >, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2,
> double, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2,
> double, Full>, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> CompressibleBrickView> > >,
> BinaryNode<OpMultiply, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Scalar<int>,
> Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> double, Cartesian<(int)2> >,
> Vector<(int)2, double, Full>, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> CompressibleBrickView> > > > >,
> BinaryNode<OpMultiply, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> BinaryNode<OpMultiply, Scalar<double>, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2,
> double, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2,
> double, Full>, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> CompressibleBrickView> > >,
> BinaryNode<OpSubtract, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2,
> double, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2,
> double, Full>, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> CompressibleBrickView> >, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2,
> double, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cartesian<(int)2> >, !</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Vector<(int)2, double, Full>,
> CompressibleBrickView> > > > >, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Reference<Field<UniformRectilinear<(int)2,
> double, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cartesian<(int)2> >, Vector<(int)2,
> double, Full>, </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> CompressibleBrickView> > > ></FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> INSTANTIATE_VIEW1_AND_FRIENDS(T1,T2,T3)</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> #undef T1</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> #undef T2</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> #undef T3</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
> </P>
>
> </BODY>
> </HTML>