-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
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
[oneDPL][rfc][ranges] proposal for implementation of the second part of range based API for oneDPL #2037
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…of range based API for oneDPL
Co-authored-by: Alexey Kukanov <alexey.kukanov@intel.com>
- The range-based signatures for the mentioned API should correspond to the proposal for C++ parallel range algorithms, P3179. | ||
(https://wg21.link/p3179) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As an exception to this rule, we might have mismatch
to follow equal
and transform
in the oneDPL specification and allow only one of the two ranges to be sized.
I am still thinking of the best way to handle this.
### Test coverage | ||
|
||
- It should be called with both small and large data sizes and with all the policies mentioned above. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it make sense to also mention what kinds of input and output ranges (containers, views, etc.) will be tested?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it does.
I think we need to write down it here explicitly...
Co-authored-by: Alexey Kukanov <alexey.kukanov@intel.com>
[oneDPL][rfc][ranges] proposal for implementation of the second part of range based API for oneDPL