Removed old nvcc workarounds

src/TNL/Algorithms/detail/Reduction.hpp

@@ -302,20 +302,7 @@ Reduction< Devices::Cuda >::reduce( const Index begin, const Index end, Fetch&&
 
    if( can_reduce_later_on_host ) {
       // transfer the reduced data from device to host
-      std::unique_ptr< Result[] > resultArray{
-// Workaround for nvcc 10.1.168 - it would modify the simple expression
-// `new Result[reducedSize]` in the source code to `new (Result[reducedSize])`
-// which is not correct - see e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/a/39671946
-// Thus, the host compiler would spit out hundreds of warnings...
-// Funnily enough, nvcc's behaviour depends on the context rather than the
-// expression, because exactly the same simple expression in different places
-// does not produce warnings.
-#ifdef __NVCC__
-         new Result[ static_cast< const int& >( reducedSize ) ]
-#else
-         new Result[ reducedSize ]
-#endif
-      };
+      std::unique_ptr< Result[] > resultArray{ new Result[ reducedSize ] };
       MultiDeviceMemoryOperations< void, Devices::Cuda >::copy( resultArray.get(), deviceAux1, reducedSize );
 
 #ifdef CUDA_REDUCTION_PROFILING
@@ -392,34 +379,8 @@ Reduction< Devices::Cuda >::reduceWithArgument( const Index begin,
 
    if( can_reduce_later_on_host ) {
       // transfer the reduced data from device to host
-      std::unique_ptr< Result[] > resultArray{
-// Workaround for nvcc 10.1.168 - it would modify the simple expression
-// `new Result[reducedSize]` in the source code to `new (Result[reducedSize])`
-// which is not correct - see e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/a/39671946
-// Thus, the host compiler would spit out hundreds of warnings...
-// Funnily enough, nvcc's behaviour depends on the context rather than the
-// expression, because exactly the same simple expression in different places
-// does not produce warnings.
-#ifdef __NVCC__
-         new Result[ static_cast< const int& >( reducedSize ) ]
-#else
-         new Result[ reducedSize ]
-#endif
-      };
-      std::unique_ptr< Index[] > indexArray{
-// Workaround for nvcc 10.1.168 - it would modify the simple expression
-// `new Index[reducedSize]` in the source code to `new (Index[reducedSize])`
-// which is not correct - see e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/a/39671946
-// Thus, the host compiler would spit out hundreds of warnings...
-// Funnily enough, nvcc's behaviour depends on the context rather than the
-// expression, because exactly the same simple expression in different places
-// does not produce warnings.
-#ifdef __NVCC__
-         new Index[ static_cast< const int& >( reducedSize ) ]
-#else
-         new Index[ reducedSize ]
-#endif
-      };
+      std::unique_ptr< Result[] > resultArray{ new Result[ reducedSize ] };
+      std::unique_ptr< Index[] > indexArray{ new Index[ reducedSize ] };
       MultiDeviceMemoryOperations< void, Devices::Cuda >::copy( resultArray.get(), deviceAux1, reducedSize );
       MultiDeviceMemoryOperations< void, Devices::Cuda >::copy( indexArray.get(), deviceIndexes, reducedSize );