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
