Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Follow-on to #3701 #3702

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 26, 2024
Merged

Follow-on to #3701 #3702

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 26, 2024

Conversation

atmyers
Copy link
Member

@atmyers atmyers commented Jan 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

The parenthesis are not needed and some compilers warn about them.

The proposed changes:

  • fix a bug or incorrect behavior in AMReX
  • add new capabilities to AMReX
  • changes answers in the test suite to more than roundoff level
  • are likely to significantly affect the results of downstream AMReX users
  • include documentation in the code and/or rst files, if appropriate

@atmyers atmyers requested a review from WeiqunZhang January 17, 2024 23:37
@WeiqunZhang
Copy link
Member

Does #pragma unroll n+1 work? At least for cuda #pragma unroll (n+1) should work.

@WeiqunZhang
Copy link
Member

How about n + 1 etc.? I am wondering if having () provides more protection.

@atmyers atmyers merged commit d5cc579 into AMReX-Codes:development Jan 26, 2024
69 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@WeiqunZhang WeiqunZhang WeiqunZhang approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@atmyers @WeiqunZhang