-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add reference implementation for parallel_block feature #1570
Draft
isaevil
wants to merge
11
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
dev/pavelkumbrasev/parallel_block
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
67da7fd
Add initial impl of Parallel Block
pavelkumbrasev 1557e79
Add test for workers_leave
pavelkumbrasev 4edb96a
Fix thread_leave_manager
pavelkumbrasev 37864dd
Add parallel_block API, improve tests
isaevil 4486959
Improve tests for parallel_block
isaevil a7483ee
Add workers_leave::automatic, let hybric systems take advantage of pa…
isaevil 755e74f
Fix Windows compilation
isaevil 68d7a52
Add win32 exports
isaevil 13aae55
Add mac64 symbols
isaevil 6538eca
Correct mask, add a clarifying comment to it
isaevil fa41197
Apply suggested typo fix
isaevil File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we anticipate any future extension? In other words, does it make sense to accept an untyped pointer for any future details?
Also, I don't think single bit can be passed. At least a word (or even more?) is used anyway. Then, it makes sense to accept at least that width and do not kill opportunity for future extensions:
Please double check what size of information is passed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I also have been thinking about that. Perhaps we should pass
std::uintptr_t
instead ofvoid*
?