Tom Smith wrote:
Dear All,
I am trying to write some parallel code using Boost.MPI? I also want to use the class Boost.MultiArray.
My question is: does Boost.MultiArray support parallel computation? If not, which class should I use instead for multi-d array operations. Thanks a lot!
best wishes
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Tom, The answer appears to be no. For a custom class to be usable with the boost.MPI communication functions, it needs to have serialization operations defined (as in the serialization library). I looked in the MultiArray, Serialization, and MPI libraries, and I don't see such a definition in any of them. (It's always possible I missed it, and if the authors write back to tell you it is there, they are obviously right.) From this position, there are a few choices. 1 -- You could work with the authors to produce serialization operations for the multi-array library. This would be great, because it could get added to the trunk, tested and become a standard part of the MultiArray library that everyone else could also benefit from. If you are already familiar with both serialization and MultiArray, this might not even be very hard. 2 -- You could use the base MPI functions for a custom data structure. You still have complete access to the base MPI calls when working with boost.MPI. They include functions for serializing custom data structures. The functions aren't pretty by the standards of current C++ design, but they are there and functional. This would be a solution for your code, but less portable and less readable than option 1. 3 -- You could fall back to some other data structure for the data points. You could, for example, map your array to a vector and store it that way. Vectors already have provided serialization, so MPI communication is easy. The problem in that case is that the data structure may not be a good reflection of the concept it is supposed to model. This would complicate algorithms, and could cause problems with performance if it breaks things like data locality. Replacing the MultiArray with other data structures may also be possible, but it is probably not a good idea if it breaks much of your other reasoning. Sorry you are stuck with choices. Personally, I'd vote for option 1, but you should do what's best for your project. John