On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Tim Jenness wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:18 AM, Peter W. Draper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Tim Jenness wrote:
>>
>> > Peter,
>> >
>> > Is it worth moving thread-safe ems into trunk so that we can start using
>> > it on a daily basis? I have no idea if David is testing it in his
>> > threaded smurf but I think we should be giving the thread-safe ems a
>> > bashing in single thread mode for a while.
>> >
>> > I'm hoping that AST thread-safe will be default for the next release in
>> > the Autumn.
>>
>> Sounds like we should move it over as soon as possible. I've been using it
>> (in thread-enabled mode, but naturally without any actual threads) and
>> haven't had any problems, David has reported nothing from his SMURF efforts
>> (but remains highly suspicious of everything I see), so I've no actual
>> reason to suspect it has issues...
>>
>> Make the call and I'll do the merge.
>
> Go on then. How bad can it get :-)
We'll see...
> I had a quick look at porting MERS to C (at least the bits that don't call
> subpar) and I'm a bit stymied by the msg_fmtX routines since they take
> fortran format descriptors and I have no idea to handle that in C (although
> one idea would be to change the API to use C sprintf formats and modify the
> Fortran code to use C rather than fortran format strings - the advantage of
> having nearly all the code in one place).
Well you could do that, but since you'll not be able to evade Fortran all
together, why not leave these alone and stick them in a Fortran
library, and add a Conly flag to the linker scripts. I doubt not having
these functions is a major pain for the C users.
Peter.
|