On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:08:32PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2013, at 23:03 , Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:22:33PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote: > >> Nathan, > >> > >> I read your code and it's definitively looking good. I have however few > >> minor issues with your patch. > >> > >> 1. MPI_Aint is unsigned as it must represent the difference between two > >> memory arbitrary locations. In your MPI_Type_get_[true_]extent_x you go > >> through size_t possibly reducing it's extent. I would suggest you used > >> ssize_t instead. > >> 2. In several other locations size_t is used as a conversion base. In some > >> of these location there is even a comment talking about ssize_t ? > > > > I looked at the code in question and there shouldn't be an issue. Where we > > want to return MPI_Aint it is never converted to a size_t. The size_t is to > > ensure that if we return an MPI_Count that the value is never larger than > > SSIZE_MAX or negative. Am I wrong in assuming MPI_Count can never be > > negative? > > Based on the standard it is both a size and a displacement (including > relative) in a file, so my understanding is that it can be negative.
Ugh, that isn't what I wanted to hear. MPI_Count can have the value of MPI_UNDEFINED which we define as -32766. Do we have to redefine this value to ensure there are no problems? -Nathan
