Skip to content

Make the constructors of Array and SharedArray consistent #13514

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 14, 2015
Merged

Make the constructors of Array and SharedArray consistent #13514

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a2aabfa
add same constructors as array
Oct 9, 2015
8e98763
add test for sharedarray constructor
Oct 11, 2015
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 11 additions & 0 deletions base/sharedarray.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -24,6 +24,17 @@ type SharedArray{T,N} <: DenseArray{T,N}
SharedArray(d,p,r,sn) = new(d,p,r,sn)
end

call{T,N}(::Type{SharedArray{T}}, d::NTuple{N,Int}; kwargs...) =
SharedArray(T, d; kwargs...)
call{T}(::Type{SharedArray{T}}, d::Integer...; kwargs...) =
SharedArray(T, d; kwargs...)
call{T}(::Type{SharedArray{T}}, m::Integer; kwargs...) =
Copy link
Member

@timholy timholy Oct 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just an FYI: this and the next two are just for getting rid of the splatting penalty. For a SharedArray, there's sufficient overhead for creation that this is probably negligible, so these probably aren't really necessary. However, neither do they hurt anything.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@polarker polarker Oct 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My original intention was to make ShareArray have the same interface as Array, since I am writing a library using both with type parameters. My fix is kind of naive. And Kevin Squire said in the user group that there could be deeper and cleaner than falling back to SharedArray(T, x), maybe someone could improve later.

SharedArray(T, m; kwargs...)
call{T}(::Type{SharedArray{T}}, m::Integer, n::Integer; kwargs...) =
SharedArray(T, m, n; kwargs...)
call{T}(::Type{SharedArray{T}}, m::Integer, n::Integer, o::Integer; kwargs...) =
SharedArray(T, m, n, o; kwargs...)

function SharedArray(T::Type, dims::NTuple; init=false, pids=Int[])
N = length(dims)

Expand Down
14 changes: 14 additions & 0 deletions test/parallel.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -179,6 +179,20 @@ end

### Utility functions

# construct PR #13514
S = SharedArray{Int}((1,2,3))
@test size(S) == (1,2,3)
@test typeof(S) <: SharedArray{Int}
S = SharedArray{Int}(2)
@test size(S) == (2,)
@test typeof(S) <: SharedArray{Int}
S = SharedArray{Int}(1,2)
@test size(S) == (1,2)
@test typeof(S) <: SharedArray{Int}
S = SharedArray{Int}(1,2,3)
@test size(S) == (1,2,3)
@test typeof(S) <: SharedArray{Int}

# reshape

d = Base.shmem_fill(1.0, (10,10,10))
Expand Down