On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:24 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> In the current bitmap implementation every time we set or check a
> bit we have to compute the index of the char where this bit is set
> and the relative position from the beginning of char. This requires
> two _VERY_ expensive operations: a division and a modulo. Compared
> with the cost of these two operation a quick test for a max bit is
> irrelevant.
>
> In fact I think the safety limit if good for most cases. How about
> having the max bit to the limit used to initialize the bitmap? We
> can add a call to extend the bitmap in case some layer really need
> to extend it, but restrict all others layers to the number of bits
> requested when the bitmap is initialized.
The problem with this is that the original design expands the bitmap
whenever you try to set a bit that doesn't yet exist. So you'd need
to track down every place in the code that exercises this assumption.
You could set a max size if you want to (e.g., assuming you'll never
have more than some_large_value of fortran handles [probably
considerably less than the number of Fortran integers available], or
somesuch).
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}