Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Assigning to Shubho since this is his function.
Original comment by harr...@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2009 at 11:30
Original comment by harr...@gmail.com
on 23 Jun 2009 at 2:10
Original comment by shu...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 4:50
John to verify.
Original comment by harr...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 4:57
Shubho, can you clarify the way this argument works? Is this greater-than or
greater-than-or-equal-to? If it's as described, I don't see how it would be
possible
to specify a minimum index that is just to the right of 0, since 0 seems to be
special-cased according to the description.
Also, there's a reference to d_maxindex in the kernel description, but there's
no
d_maxindex argument. It looks like the kernel description was copied from the
previous kernel.
Also, there's a FIXME comment in this kernel.
Original comment by jow...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 1:12
It is greater than. If it is 0 then it is added to the whole CTA. if it is 1
you have a minimum index which is just to
the right of 0 (the minimum index is 1-based)
changed d_maxIndex to d_minIndex
FIXME is unrelated to this issue - can open a new one to fix that
Original comment by shu...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 5:10
Can you clarify the 1-based thing in the comments? It seems to me that
greater-than-with-1-index is equivalent to the simpler
greater-than-or-equal-to-with-0-index, but I just want it described completely;
I
didn't write the code. But "1-index" is not mentioned in the documentation at
all and
it seems like it should be.
Original comment by jow...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 5:19
It is in line 293 - and also in segmented_scan_cta.cu where they are generated.
There is a reason why it is 1 - if the first element of a CTA has a flag - the
index would be 0 - but 0 also means
the absence of a flag. Hence a 1-based index to prevent overloading of what 0
means.
Original comment by shu...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 5:27
That clarification - why it's one-based - is worth adding. It would make it much
easier for those who modify/use your code to understand it.
Original comment by jow...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 5:52
Added clarification
Original comment by shu...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 9:49
That's helpful, thanks.
Original comment by jow...@gmail.com
on 25 Jun 2009 at 9:55
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jow...@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2009 at 10:48