fwiw
in a previous thread, Jeff Hammond explained this is why mpich is
relying on C89 instead of C99,
since C89 appears to be a subset of C++11.
Cheers,
Gilles
On 3/2/2016 1:02 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
I will add to how crazy this is. The C standard has been very careful
to not break existing code. For example the C99 boolean is _Bool not
bool because C reserves _[A-Z]* for its own use. This means a valid C89
program is a valid C99 and C11 program. It Look like this is not true in
C++.
-Nathan
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:52:49PM +0000, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
On Feb 25, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote:
A "bare" function name (without parens) is the address of the function, which
can be converted to an int, long, etc.
So the "rank" identifier can validly refer to the function in this context.
I understand that there's logic behind this. But it's still crazy to me that:
-----
int foo(void) {
int rank;
printf("Value: %d", rank);
}
-----
is ambiguous.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Link to this post:
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/02/18624.php
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Link to this post:
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/03/18647.php
