-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 109
Feature/openqxd #1414
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
Feature/openqxd #1414
Conversation
The rank formula was updated to the openQxD layout: rank = coords[0]*dims[1]*dims[2]*dims[3] + coords[1]*dims[2]*dims[3] + coords[2]*dims[3] + coords[3]
The forloop was corrected (typo in i counter)
corrected to i<=3
trying to manually couple indexing correctly
Currently, the reordering is done inside OpenQxd
Probably it will continue to work for spinor fields... To be confirmed..
In check3, only half the sites are loaded onto quda (odd ones on whole lattice), then in the save function, only the odd ones in the first half get reloaded!
… spinor_dble struct (not necessary)
…P=ON and QUDA_INTERFACE_OPENQCD=ON
Originally yes, but I saw that it makes stuff increasingly complicated. So I added a new Cmake flag See 452f6e6 |
…AMMA_Y, QUDA_GAMMA_Z, QUDA_GAMMA_T, QUDA_GAMMA_5
…with MPI if openqcd interface is on
|
I'm happy with this PR from a visual standpoint. I still need to do build/run tests, in particular with QCD+QED, but that's more to make sure nothing unexpectedly broke, there are a few things I'd like to try beyond what's covered by our CI. This is awesome work, @chaoos . Based on an offline convo, I'll take on updating the Wilson dslash tests to properly test recon-13 and -9 in a separate PR. This would be done by generating random U(3) instead of SU(3) fields. Since I've had to deal with this relatively recently with HISQ (as is relevant for long links) this should be relatively straightforward for me. @maddyscientist , I believe you wanted to do some further review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @chaoos for all the work you have done and going through the review process to get this in shape to merge.
I have one small comment (regarding enabling strict prototyping for the C interface test), but beyond that, this is good to go. Approving.
I'll take point on addressing the strict prototypic for the C interface as part of updating the unit tests to explicitly check recon-9/13 when QCD+QED is enabled, I'm happy to merge this. Thanks @chaoos for all of your work (and patience when I was slow to review it)! |
developbranch