With the major revision 2.0 of VTK-m, many items previously marked as
deprecated were removed. If updating to a new version of VTK-m, it is
recommended to first update to VTK-m 1.9, which will include the deprecated
features but provide warnings (with the right compiler) that will point to
the replacement code. Once the deprecations have been fixed, updating to
2.0 should be smoother.
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 arrays decorate other arrays but still allow an efficient component
extraction. However, the component can only be extracted if it can be
efficiently extracted from the array being decorated. In this case, the
array reported that it could efficiently extract even though it could
not.
Fixed this by having the `ArrayExtractComponentImpl` classes inherit
from the respective superclass. This will in turn inhert the
`ArrayExtractComponentImplInefficient` if it is the base class.
What was previously declared as `ArrayHandleNewStyle` is now just the
implementation of `ArrayHandle`. The old implementation of `ArrayHandle`
has been moved to `ArrayHandleDeprecated`, and `ArrayHandle`s still
using this implementation must declare `VTKM_ARRAY_HANDLE_DEPRECATED` to
use it.
`ArrayExtractComponent` allows you to get a component of an array.
Unlike `ArrayHandleExtractComponent`, the type you get is always the
same: an `ArrayHandleStride`. This way, you can get an array that
contains the data of an extracted component with less templating and
potentially dramatically reduce the amount of code generated (although
some runtime integer arithmetic is added).
The old version of ExecutionObject (that only takes a device) is still
supported, but you will get a deprecated warning if that is what is
defined.
Supporing this also included sending vtkm::cont::Token through the
vtkm::cont::arg::Transport mechanism, which was a change that propogated
through a lot of code.
Also discovered that many C++ compilers have trouble giving warnings
for partial specialization of classes marked as deprecated. Fix
the problem by instead deprecating the items in the class.
7e01edb01 Ensure that Portal::Set isn't defined for read-only portals.
Acked-by: Kitware Robot <kwrobot@kitware.com>
Acked-by: Robert Maynard <robert.maynard@kitware.com>
Merge-request: !1848
This patch removes (or conditionally removes) the Set method from
portals that are read-only so that IsWritableArrayHandle will work as
expected. The ArrayPortal doxygen has been updated to reflect this.
The remaining exceptions are `ArrayPortalVirtual` and
`ArrayPortalMultiplexer`, since their mutability cannot be determined at
compile time.
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.
Previously ArrayHandleReverse would only work if it was provided an explicit
users array to map too. But this doesn't need to be so, if a user wants to
start by constructing an ArrayHandleReverse we should allow that.
The side effect of this, is that some very tricky code in the DeviceAdapters
can be removed, that explicitly was added to allow output to ArrayHandleReverse