7518d0675 Try to fix uninitialized anonymous variable warning
5b18ffd77 Register Variant as trivially copyable if possible
16305bd83 Add tests of ArrayHandleMultiplexer on multiple devices
Acked-by: Kitware Robot <kwrobot@kitware.com>
Acked-by: Robert Maynard <robert.maynard@kitware.com>
Merge-request: !1898
The code from the previous commit was causing one of the dashboards,
which is using gcc-7, to produce the following warning:
In file included from ../testing/UnitTestVariant.cxx:11:0:
../Variant.h: In function 'void {anonymous}::TestCopyDestroy()':
../Variant.h:269:5: warning: '<anonymous>' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
this->Storage = std::move(rhs.Storage);
^~~~
At best, this warning is not helpful as it does not seem to point to
anything that could be used uninitialized. At worst, it might be a
compiler bug. A Google search finds a few similar bugs although none I
can assert with any confidence of this issue. However, many reported
bugs and issues point to the use of anonymous namespaces. So, I'm going
to attempt to fix the problem by removing anonymous namespaces.
Hopefully it will fix the warning or at least point me to something
concrete that I can fix.
The Variant template can hold any type. If it is holding a type that is
non-copyable, then it has to make sure that appropriate constructors,
copiers, movers, and destructors are called.
Previously, these were called even the Variant was holding a trivially
copyable class because no harm no foul. If you were holding a trivially
copyable class and did a memcpy, that work work, which should make it
possible to copy between host and device, right?
In theory yes, but in practice no. The problem is that Cuda is
outsmarting the code. It is checking that Variant is not trivially-
copyable by C++ semantics and refusing to push it.
So, change Variant to check to see if all its supported classes are
trivially copyable. If they are, then it use the default constructors,
destructors, movers, and copiers so that C++ recognizes it as trivially
copyable.
79f7f8275 Fix UnitTestError failure
901711bff Fix test failure due to floating point issues
Acked-by: Kitware Robot <kwrobot@kitware.com>
Acked-by: Robert Maynard <robert.maynard@kitware.com>
Merge-request: !1896
552d47349 Initial documentation on how to cut a VTK-m release
Acked-by: Kitware Robot <kwrobot@kitware.com>
Acked-by: Kenneth Moreland <kmorel@sandia.gov>
Merge-request: !1894
This file was using the Matrix class but not including Matrix.h. When I
tried to use the MeshQuality filter in an example that did not include
Matrix.h on its own, I got a compile error.
If a worklet doesn't explicitly state an ExecutionSignature, VTK-m
assumes the worklet has no return value, and each ControlSignature
argument is passed to the worklet in the same order.
For example if we had this worklet:
```cxx
struct DotProduct : public vtkm::worklet::WorkletMapField
{
using ControlSignature = void(FieldIn, FieldIn, FieldOut);
using ExecutionSignature = void(_1, _2, _3);
template <typename T, vtkm::IdComponent Size>
VTKM_EXEC void operator()(const vtkm::Vec<T, Size>& v1,
const vtkm::Vec<T, Size>& v2,
T& outValue) const
{
outValue = vtkm::Dot(v1, v2);
}
};
```
It can be simplified to be:
```cxx
struct DotProduct : public vtkm::worklet::WorkletMapField
{
using ControlSignature = void(FieldIn, FieldIn, FieldOut);
template <typename T, vtkm::IdComponent Size>
VTKM_EXEC void operator()(const vtkm::Vec<T, Size>& v1,
const vtkm::Vec<T, Size>& v2,
T& outValue) const
{
outValue = vtkm::Dot(v1, v2);
}
};
