Skip to content

Do not pretend to default initialize a device lambda #5015

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: branch-25.06
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

miscco
Copy link
Contributor

@miscco miscco commented Apr 3, 2025

Found in CCCL CI

@miscco miscco requested a review from a team as a code owner April 3, 2025 19:07
@bdice bdice added improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change labels Apr 11, 2025
VertexValueInputIterator vertex_value_input_first{};
VertexOp v_op{};
vertex_t local_vertex_partition_range_first;
VertexValueInputIterator vertex_value_input_first;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can't we default initialize iterators as well? Or is this because of possible thrust::transform_iterator with lambda?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My reasoning with removing all default initializers is that partially initializing the struct does not make any sense and it is only ever initialized in a single place, so it feels "cleaner" to initialize all or nothing

Nothing I feel strongly about though

vertex_t local_vertex_partition_range_first{};
VertexValueInputIterator vertex_value_input_first{};
VertexOp v_op{};
vertex_t local_vertex_partition_range_first;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can default initializing vertex_t (which is either int32_t or int64_t) or can this be also problematic?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cuGraph improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants