> On Jul 31, 2019, at 9:50 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> 
> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.scie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You're ignoring the long tail of consequences here -- what about 
>>> PMPI/tools?  What about other C++ features that we should be using, too?  
>>> ...?
>> No scope creep. No slippery slope. Do the one thing we need to go and stop. 
>> Leave the rest for MPI-5. 
> So PMPI/tools are out of scope?

“C++ compilers shall produce the same result as C11 generic.” Why does this 
need to say anything different for profiling and tools? Is this impossible?

> Looking forward to your pull request.

I won’t lose any sleep if we don’t get both C11 and C++ overloads. I’m just 
saying it shouldn’t be hard to get C++ if we do C11.

mpi-forum mailing list

Reply via email to