On Jul 31, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Joseph Schuchart via mpi-forum <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote:
> Should we mark in the interface the fact that the MPI_Count overloads are > only available in C11? I'm thinking about something similar to cppreference's > distinction between C/C++ standard versions, e.g., > > > ``` > int MPI_Send(const void *buf, MPI_Count count, MPI_Datatype datatype, int > dest, int tag, MPI_Comm comm) [>C11|C++] > ``` These are exactly the kind of discussions that I'd like to have before the September meeting: what is the best way to render the output to convey the information in an aesthetic way? I'm terrible at this kind of stuff. ----- That being said, I would not want to mark anything as "C++", because the MPI spec does not explicitly support C++ at all. The text that will support this ticket will only have an Advice to Implementors for those implementations who want to continue to have an <mpi.h> that supports both C and C++. Per feedback we got in the Virtual Meeting last week, the advice is to *not* use C++ polymorphism, and, instead, treat C++ as a complier that does not support C11 _Generic (i.e., the MPI_Count-enabled version of MPI_Foo() will simply not be available -- see Froozle). The rationale here is that if an implementation supports C++ polymorphism, there are three options: 1. The standard needs to make official statements about C++, which basically re-introduces formal C++ support in the MPI spec (which is a Big Deal) 2. PMPI-enabled tools will need to support non-standard C++ polymorphism in order to guarantee that they can intercept all MPI APIs when the application is written in C++ 3. PMPI-enabled tools do not support intercepting all MPI APIs when the application is written in C++ None of those 3 options are attractive. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum
