I agree with Jeff H that excluding C++ from the BigCount polymorphism seems unfortunate (and unintuitive for C++ developers). The _Generic selectors in C11 map a call to MPI_YYY() to either MPI_YYY(int) or MPI_YYY_x(MPI_Count). A C++ interface could do the same, with some macro work in the background, just using function overloading to select the right C99 call to make. There wouldn't be additional PMIPI calls to cover for tools and the amount of words required for C++ in the standard would be minimal.

Joseph

On 7/31/19 6:59 PM, Jeff Hammond via mpi-forum wrote:



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.

Jeff
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org
https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum

_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org
https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum

Reply via email to