It’s a long email to read on my phone while on vacation. 

You just need a sentence that says C++ compilers support C bindings, including 
the C11 generic stuff, just using a very different mechanism. Is that going to 
delay MPI-4?

In any case, all the issues with polymorphism is exactly why it’s so important 
to have explicit symbols for C89/C99 usage so that implementations can add 
extensions that do the polymorphism stuff if it doesn’t get voted in. If you 
don’t say C++, there’s no reason OMPI and MPICH can’t do the obvious, trivial 
and intelligent thing.

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:03 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 31, 2019, at 10:52 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.scie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> You’re going to have to mention C++. You can’t just pretend that C++ 
>> supports C11 generic, because it explicitly doesn’t.
> 
> We are mentioning C++.  Please re-read my prior email.  
> 
>> And you really should do this because it’s ridiculous not to use C++ 
>> polymorphism if we use C11’s.
> 
> There are three options:
> 
> 1. Re-introduce C++ bindings, delay MPI-4.
> 2. Re-introduce C++ bindings, BigCount misses the MPI-4 train.
> 4. Do not re-introduce C++ bindings, BigCount catches the MPI-4 train.
> 
> The feedback from the Forum was that BigCount was a blocker/gating issue for 
> MPI-4.  Hence, this is why the BigCount WG is not planning at this time to 
> re-introduce C++ bindings via BigCount.
> 
> There is a longer term plan (think: MPI-5) to introduce a full-featured set 
> of C++ bindings to MPI -- one that does not necessarily have a 1:1 
> correspondence to the C bindings.  That is a different, much longer effort, 
> and will definitely not make it into MPI-4.
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquy...@cisco.com
> 
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org
https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum

Reply via email to