Previously, the number of buffers held by an `ArrayHandle` had to be
determined statically at compile time by the storage. Most of the time
this is fine. However, there are some exceptions where the number of
buffers need to be selected at runtime. For example, the
`ArrayHandleRecombineVec` does not specify the number of components it
uses, and it needed a hack where it stored buffers in the metadata of
another buffer, which is bad.
This change allows the number of buffers to vary at runtime (at least at
construction). The buffers were already managed in a `std::vector`. It
now no longer forces the vector to be a specific size.
`GetNumberOfBuffers` was removed from the `Storage`. Instead, if the
number of buffers was not specified at construction, an allocation of
size 0 is done to create default buffers.
The biggest change is to the interface of the storage object methods,
which now take `std::vector` instead of pointers to `Buffer` objects.
This adds a little hastle in having to copy subsets of this `vector`
when a storage object has multiple sub-arrays. But it does simplify some
of the templating.
Many of the fancy `ArrayHandle`s are read-only and therefore connot
really create write portals. Likewise, many `ArrayHandle`s (both read-
only and read/write) have no way to resize themselves. In this case,
implementing the `CreateWritePortal` and `ResizeBuffers` methods in the
`Storage` class was troublesome. Mostly they just threw an exception,
but they also sometimes had to deal with cases where the behavior was
allowed.
To simplify code for developers, this introduces a pair of macros:
`VTKM_STORAGE_NO_RESIZE` and `VTKM_STORAGE_NO_WRITE_PORTAL`. These can
be declared in a `Storage` implementation when the storage has no viable
way to resize itself and create a write portal, respectively.
Having boilerplate code for these methods also helps work around
expected behavior for `ResizeBuffers`. `ResizeBuffers` should silently
work when resizing to the same size. Also `ResizeBuffers` should behave
well when resizing to 0 as that is what `ReleaseResources` does.
When `ArrayHandleCompositeVector` has only 1 component, it is supposed
to have a special template that uses the base value type rather than a
`Vec` of that type. However, the `Storage` with the value type was
missing. I'm not sure how we weren't getting compile errors before, but
moving to the new buffer arrays seems to bring about the expected error.
Sandia National Laboratories recently changed management from the
Sandia Corporation to the National Technology & Engineering Solutions
of Sandia, LLC (NTESS). The copyright statements need to be updated
accordingly.
This reduces the number of weak vtables vtkm generates, resulting in
a reduction of binary sizes for projects that include vtkm classes in
multiple translation units.
Class that need to be passed across dynamic library boundaries such as
DynamicArrayHandle need to be properly export. One of 'tricks' of this
is that templated classes such as PolymorphicArrayHandleContainer need
the Type and Storage types to have public visibility.
This makes sure that all vtkm storage tags have public visibility so
in the future we can transfer dynamic array handles across libraries.
Change the VTKM_CONT_EXPORT to VTKM_CONT. (Likewise for EXEC and
EXEC_CONT.) Remove the inline from these macros so that they can be
applied to everything, including implementations in a library.
Because inline is not declared in these modifies, you have to add the
keyword to functions and methods where the implementation is not inlined
in the class.
This is to be used in place of BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT so that we can
control its implementation.
The implementation is designed to fix the issue where the latest XCode
clang compiler gives a warning about a unused typedefs when the boost
static assert is used within a function. (This warning also happens when
using the C++11 static_assert keyword.) You can suppress this warning
with _Pragma commands, but _Pragma commands inside a block is not
supported in GCC. The implementation of VTKM_STATIC_ASSERT handles all
current cases.
On one of my compile platforms, GCC was giving conversion warnings from
any boost include that was not wrapped in pragmas to disable conversion
warnings. To make things easier and more robust, I created a pair of
macros, VTKM_BOOST_PRE_INCLUDE and VTKM_BOOST_POST_INCLUDE, that should
be wrapped around any #include of a boost header file.
Add an Allocate method in ArrayHandle that basically forwards the
alllocate request to the storage object. This allows some measure of
control of the array from the control side. You can allocate the array
and set values (by getting the control array portal) if you so desire.
After a talk with Robert Maynard, we decided to change the name
ArrayContainerControl to Storage. There are several reasons for this
change.
1. The name ArrayContainerControl is unwieldy. It is long, hard for
humans to parse, and makes for long lines and wraparound. It is also
hard to distinguish from other names like ArrayHandleFoo and
ArrayExecutionManager.
2. The word container is getting overloaded. For example, there is a
SimplePolymorphicContainer. Container is being used for an object that
literally acts like a container for data. This class really manages
data.
3. The data does not necessarily have to be on the control side.
Implicit containers store the data nowhere. Derivative containers might
have all the real data on the execution side. It is possible in the
future to have storage on the execution environment instead of the
control (think interfacing with a simulator on the GPU).
Storage is not a perfect word (what does implicit storage really mean?),
but its the best English word we came up with.
