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
