Changes between Version 13 and Version 14 of ticket/0829


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2011-06-03T16:03:08+02:00 (9 years ago)
Author:
rblod
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • ticket/0829

    v13 v14  
    118118It was implemented in wrk_nemo_2 and implemented for test in traadv_tvd. To avoid changing all routines before a definitive choice, we choose to keep the old way and duplicate wrk_nemo in wrk_nemo_2 (later saved as wrk_nemo_2_simple), so we declare the double amount of memory, this would of course not be the case if it was implemented in all routines[[BR]] 
    119119To avoid memory leaks, we could check for instance at the end of step that each counter is equal to one.[[BR]] 
    120 This was implemented here : http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/changeset/2775 
     120This was implemented here : http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/changeset/2775 and wrk_nemo_2 is there http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/branches/2011/dev_r2769_LOCEAN_dynamic_mem/NEMOGCM/NEMO/OPA_SRC/wrk_nemo_2.F90_simple 
    121121 
    122122==== 3- Dynamic dynamic memory ==== 
     
    147147 * is it more expensive to allocate/deallocate at each call in a standard way 
    148148 * or to CALL a subroutine pointing toward an existing already allocated array 
    149 Anyway, an example can be found there http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/changeset/2776 
     149I got alos some concerned about future evolutions. If we imagine having a large variety of arrays (not only jpi,jpj,jpk) it could become hard to maintain.[[BR]] 
     150[[BR]] 
     151 
     152 
     153Anyway, an example can be found there http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/changeset/2776 and wrk_nemo_2 is there http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/branches/2011/dev_r2769_LOCEAN_dynamic_mem/NEMOGCM/NEMO/OPA_SRC/wrk_nemo_2.F90 
    150154 
    151155----