A large portion of the VTK-m filters are now compiled into the
vtkm_filter library. These pre-built filters now don't include
the respective hxx file to remove the amount of template
instantiation users do.
To verify that this removal reduces compiler memory ( and maybe time)
I profiled the compiler while it building filter tests in debug mode.
Here is a selection of results:
```
CleanGrid 10.25s => 9.01s, 901MB => 795MB
ExternalFaces 13.40s => 5.96s, 1122MB => 744MB
ExtractStructured 4.69s => 4.75s, 492MB => 492MB
GradientExplicit 22.97s => 5.88s, 1296MB => 740MB
```
- It explicitly instantiate its concrete templates to
the supported types.
- It disables implicit template instantations for the
the supported types.
- Also fix small typo in Contour impl include guards
Signed-off-by: Vicente Adolfo Bolea Sanchez <vicente.bolea@kitware.com>
Instead, always use precompiled versions of range computing. This means
you won't be able to specify the type. Currently, types are limited to
scalars vecs up to size 4.
The main motivation for this change is to allow you to include Field.h
with a non-device compiler. This is an important feature for our
customers.
I plan in the future to implement a mechanism to pull out a component of
most ArrayHandle's as a single array. This would enable us to support a
precompiled version that can compute the range of arbitrarily sized
Vecs.
When you execute a filter, the default behavior is to do the execution
on each partition of the data set independently. This code path is
followed even for non-partitioned data; the `DataSet` is wrapped in a
`PartitionedDataSet` of one partition.
Make performance logging a bit more clear by only giving one scoped log
for a basic `DataSet` and recording the number of partitions executed in
the log.
The old atomic compare and swap operations (`vtkm::AtomicCompareAndSwap`
and `vtkm::exec::AtomicArrayExecutionObject::CompareAndSwap`) had an
order of arguments that was confusing. The order of the arguments was
shared pointer (or index), desired value, expected value. Most people
probably assume expected value comes before desired value. And this
order conflicts with the order in the `std` methods, GCC atomics, and
Kokkos.
Change the interface of atomic operations to be patterned off the
`std::atomic_compare_exchange` and `std::atomic<T>::compare_exchange`
methods. First, these methods have a more intuitive order of parameters
(shared pointer, expected, desired). Second, rather than take a value
for the expected and return the actual old value, they take a pointer to
the expected value (or reference in `AtomicArrayExecutionObject`) and
modify this value in the case that it does not match the actual value.
This makes it harder to mix up the expected and desired parameters.
Also, because the methods return a bool indicating whether the value was
changed, there is an additional benefit that compare-exchange loops are
implemented easier.
For example, consider you want to apply the function `MyOp` on a
`sharedValue` atomically. With the old interface, you would have to do
something like this.
```cpp
T oldValue;
T newValue;
do
{
oldValue = *sharedValue;
newValue = MyOp(oldValue);
} while (vtkm::AtomicCompareAndSwap(sharedValue, newValue, oldValue) != oldValue);
```
With the new interface, this is simplfied to this.
```cpp
T oldValue = *sharedValue;
while (!vtkm::AtomicCompareExchange(sharedValue, &oldValue, MyOp(oldValue));
```
