Remove pointers in multiply module #294
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
ilectra
approved these changes
Nov 30, 2023
tkoskela
added
area: main-source
Contributor
Contributor
|
I want to think about this change some more, and discuss it with @tsuyoshi38 before we approve it |
davidbowler
approved these changes
Jan 11, 2024
Contributor
davidbowler
left a comment
davidbowler
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a better way to manage the access to part_array
davidbowler
added
type: maintenance
tkoskela
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR removes pointers to
part_arrayinmultiply_moduleand passes slices ofpart_arrayto subroutines instead. It also tries to clarify the indexing ofpart_arrayto make it clearer which slice is being passed.I'm open to opinions on whether or not this is a good idea. It's more of a style change than anything else, although it should make the code more robust against the kind of memory errors in #280. I would argue this is a more Fortran style use of arrays, compared to the C-style use of pointers. It does make the subroutine calls somewhat longer