[petsc-dev] Naming for functions that are safe to call from threads

[Jed Brown]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Still like that better than _r.


Reentrancy is not a subset or superset of thread-safety. I certainly wasn't
suggesting that we use _r to indicate thread-safety. Rather, I was asking
whether we should use a shorter (possibly single-character) identifier, and
perhaps something that indicated "CPU threads" so as not to confuse with
device kernels.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130216/011e49c1/attachment.html>