Difference between revisions of "Teleconference 2022-07-27"

From VTKM
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Attendees: == ECP Updates == * P6 Activity reporting ** PI's should update their contributions in google doc ** https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUgsTV4HYfbnXdc8xTgBqWPP...")
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Attendees:  
+
Attendees: Ken Moreland (ORNL), Ollie Lo (LANL), Mark Bolstad (SNL), Dave Pugmire (ORNL), Tushar Athawale (ORNL), Nicole Marsaglia (LLNL), Silvio Rizzi (ANL), Sujin Philip (Kitware), Terry Turton (LANL), Hank Childs (UO), Vicente Bolea (Kitware)
  
 
== ECP Updates ==
 
== ECP Updates ==
Line 7: Line 7:
 
** https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUgsTV4HYfbnXdc8xTgBqWPPhUS8spWDLuzBNKTNR7k/edit?usp=sharing
 
** https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUgsTV4HYfbnXdc8xTgBqWPPhUS8spWDLuzBNKTNR7k/edit?usp=sharing
 
* Tulip to be decommissioned August 31
 
* Tulip to be decommissioned August 31
 +
* Polaris early access available
 +
** https://argonne-lcf.github.io/polaris-userdocs/polaris/getting-started/
 
* Let's think about possible highlights
 
* Let's think about possible highlights
 
** App engagement
 
** App engagement
Line 26: Line 28:
 
== Roundtable ==
 
== Roundtable ==
  
No meeting next week.
+
Remove VTKM_CONT? A short discussion had some slight opinions both ways. On one hand, the use of VTKM_CONT is becoming a bit inconsistent with it not being used in some place that it should. On the other hand, VTKM_CONT is a useful comment to those learning the VTK-m source code to tag where something is going to run. There is also a minor concern with running into a device in the future that actually needs VTKM_CONT. Considering this, it was decided to leave the modifiers as they are.
 
 
Discussion on mailing list about moving to C++17. We do not plan to move to C++17. However, there is some worry that if VTK-m libraries are compiled with C++17 (for Kokkos), will that cause issues with using them in applications compiled with C++14? A [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46746878/is-it-safe-to-link-c17-c14-and-c11-objects StackOverflow entry] suggests this should be fine.
 
  
 
R&D100?
 
R&D100?

Latest revision as of 11:53, 27 July 2022

Attendees: Ken Moreland (ORNL), Ollie Lo (LANL), Mark Bolstad (SNL), Dave Pugmire (ORNL), Tushar Athawale (ORNL), Nicole Marsaglia (LLNL), Silvio Rizzi (ANL), Sujin Philip (Kitware), Terry Turton (LANL), Hank Childs (UO), Vicente Bolea (Kitware)

ECP Updates

Porting Activities

ECP task updates

ECP/VTK-m Project Management

Roundtable

Remove VTKM_CONT? A short discussion had some slight opinions both ways. On one hand, the use of VTKM_CONT is becoming a bit inconsistent with it not being used in some place that it should. On the other hand, VTKM_CONT is a useful comment to those learning the VTK-m source code to tag where something is going to run. There is also a minor concern with running into a device in the future that actually needs VTKM_CONT. Considering this, it was decided to leave the modifiers as they are.

R&D100?

  • Thinking of submitting for 2022
  • Big stumbling block: needs to be "created" between Jan 2021 to March 2022
  • Plan: Release VTK-m 2.0, do a copyright assertion

Rename master branch?

  • Need to wait for some changes to git before the transition (for some automated features of repo).
  • Can we for a time have a master that mirrors the new default?
    • Don't know, but seems possible. Will have to look into that.