Changes between Version 13 and Version 14 of ticket/0829

Timestamp:

2011-06-03T16:03:08+02:00 (13 years ago)

Author:

rblod

Comment:

--

ticket/0829

@@ -118 +118 @@
 It 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]]
 To avoid memory leaks, we could check for instance at the end of step that each counter is equal to one.[[BR]]
-This was implemented here : http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/changeset/2775
+This 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
 
 ==== 3- Dynamic dynamic memory ====
@@ -147 +147 @@
  * is it more expensive to allocate/deallocate at each call in a standard way
  * or to CALL a subroutine pointing toward an existing already allocated array
-Anyway, an example can be found there http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/changeset/2776
+I 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]]
+[[BR]]
+
+
+Anyway, 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
 
 ----