Fix overflows and inconsistencies of integer type use #7
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Joseph Schuchart <schuchart@hlrs.de>
…it integers Signed-off-by: Joseph Schuchart <schuchart@hlrs.de>
…ows when building with 64-bit integers Signed-off-by: Joseph Schuchart <schuchart@hlrs.de>
|
Thanks for these updates. As far as I know no one has run a problem with that many elements per process before. When we developed the code we never tested at that scale. |
This was referenced Dec 21, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I noticed that the computation of the FOM overflows easily (e.g.,
s=400on 1k nodes) due to the use of 32-bit integers. Trying to use 64-bit integers by definingInt_tasuint64_t, I noticed that there are several inconsistencies in the use ofInt_tthat break the build. This PR fixes these problems and changes most of the use ofprintftostd::coutto silence warnings about wrong format specifiers in that case.AFAICS, the use of 64-bit integers becomes necessary starting from around 650^3 elements per process to avoid overflows (8*650^3 >
INT_MAX). This PR does not change the default of using 32-bit.