-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 191
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.
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
Safely using @inbounds #164
Comments
@glwagner I created a new issue using your comment as it wasn't very relevant to the original issue. I agree that it's not guaranteed to be in bounds by itself. I guess we guarantee it by looping over the correct indices but this isn't the cleanest way. I think you're right that this belongs at the loop level where we can enclose the loop inside an I think @peterahrens suggested using Would definitely be good to refactor the code to do this. Also see: https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/boundscheck/index.html#Propagating-inbounds-1 |
Ok, it is relevant to the use of the |
Ah I see, sorry for misunderstanding. I guess I saw three separate issues:
Perhaps all three could be addressed in a single PR (but they could be addressed separately). |
Found this in the docs: https://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/devdocs/boundscheck/#Propagating-inbounds-1 I think we want to use this notation for our kernel functions, rather than forcing |
We want both |
|
Don't think this is an issue anymore, thanks @vchuravy! |
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: