Skip to content
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.

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

__host__ __device__ CUDA macro added to all header functions under Imath/ #41

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Aug 12, 2020

Conversation

oxt3479
Copy link
Contributor

@oxt3479 oxt3479 commented Aug 12, 2020

Changes include the addition of exceptionless versions of a few functions included under ImathFrustum.h, specifically:

aspect(), and projectionMatrix() now have aspect_noexcept() and projectionMatrix_noexcept() pairs.

This is included in this PR so that these functions can be used on the CUDA kernel.

Additionally, Macros were used in ImathRoots.h to deal with std::complex host only.
These functions should be unchanged when compiling normally but when compiling for CUDA instead of std::complex thrust::complex and its associated functions are used.

…and msc needed functions to compile with CUDA

Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
…compilation of quaternion with CUDA)

Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
…ion.

Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
Copy link
Contributor

@lgritz lgritz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, pending fixing whatever is causing the CI tests to fail.

@lgritz
Copy link
Contributor

lgritz commented Aug 12, 2020

It looks like maybe you have some methods declared constexpr but defined without, or maybe the other way around. They need to match.

Signed-off-by: Owen Thompson <oxt3479@rit.edu>
@oxt3479
Copy link
Contributor Author

oxt3479 commented Aug 12, 2020

It looks like Rebase and merge is causing issues. Is squashing all these into a single commit an acceptable solution, or should that be avoided?

@cary-ilm
Copy link
Member

cary-ilm commented Aug 12, 2020 via email

@oxt3479 oxt3479 merged commit da94020 into AcademySoftwareFoundation:master Aug 12, 2020
@lgritz
Copy link
Contributor

lgritz commented Aug 12, 2020

If it were up to me, squash and merge would be the only possible choice.

If you're adding fixes in response to review comments or CI failures on the original PR, then rebase & merge will end up with the repo containing commits that are known to be broken. That seems like a terrible idea, and really inhibits "git bisect" among other things.

Author the code with as many individual commits as you want, but each accepted PR should result in exactly one commit being added to the head of master.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants