(Towards #2381 #2674) add min max access types and new LFRic builtins #3263
Conversation
…into 2381_arp_global_reduction
…into 2381_arp_global_reduction
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3263 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.91% 99.91%
=======================================
Files 376 376
Lines 53529 53562 +33
=======================================
+ Hits 53484 53517 +33
Misses 45 45 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
arporter
added
LFRic
arporter
changed the title
|
Ready for a first look from anyone still working @sergisiso or @hiker ? |
| access_mapping = gh_read: read, gh_write: write, gh_readwrite: readwrite, | ||
| gh_inc: inc, gh_readinc: readinc, gh_sum: sum | ||
| gh_inc: inc, gh_readinc: readinc, gh_sum: sum, | ||
| gh_min: min, gh_max: max |
| | GH_SCALAR | GH_REAL | n/a | GH_READ, GH_SUM, | | ||
| | | | | GH_MIN, GH_MAX | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand why do we need GH_SUM, GH_MIN or GH_MAX. These is the output scalar of the built-in which will only be written to, Why not GH_WRITE?
| #: Is the output of a MIN reduction (i.e. global minimum value). | ||
| MIN = 11 | ||
| #: Is the output of a MAX reduction (i.e. global maximum value). | ||
| MAX = 12 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again MIN/MAX is not an AccessType (same with the pre-existing SUM). It is even more confusing that this refer to the output scalar, which is just written to. So why do we differentiate them?
This is a step towards both #2381 (generalising global reductions) and #2674 (new field_min_max builtin). It attempts to reduce the size of #3222 by only adding the two new access types for reductions as well as the skeletons for the new builtins.