Jeff,

You can wrap the function in a macro that checks for truncation:

#include <stdio.h>



#define bar(j) foo(sizeof(j) > sizeof(int) ? -1 : j)


static void foo(int j) {

    printf("foo(j) = %d\n", j);

}


int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {

    /* 8589934592LL == 2^33 */

    long long i = 8589934592LL + 11;

    foo(i);

    bar(i);

    return 0;

}

foo(j) = 11

foo(j) = -1

 ~Jim.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum <
mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote:

> SHORT VERSION
> =============
>
> Due to the possibility of silently introducing errors into user
> applications, the BigCount WG no longer thinks that C11 _Generic is a good
> idea.  We are therefore dropping that from our proposal.  The new proposal
> will therefore essentially just be the addition of a bunch of
> MPI_Count-enabled "_x" functions in C, combined with the addition of a
> bunch of polymorphic MPI_Count-enabled interfaces in Fortran.
>
> MORE DETAIL
> ===========
>
> Joseph Schuchart raised a very important point in a recent mailing thread:
> the following C/C++ code does not raise a compiler warning:
>
> -----
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> static void foo(int j) {
>     printf("foo(j) = %d\n", j);
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
>     /* 8589934592LL == 2^33 */
>     long long i = 8589934592LL + 11;
>     foo(i);
>     return 0;
> }
> -----
>
> If you compile and run this program on a commodity x86-64 platform, a) you
> won't get a warning from the compiler, and b) you'll see "11" printed out.
> I tried with gcc 9 and clang 8 -- both with the C and C++ compilers.  I
> even tried with "-Wall -pedantic".  No warnings.
>
> This is because casting from a larger int type to a smaller int type is
> perfectly valid C/C++.
>
> Because of this, there is a possibility that we could be silently
> introducing errors into user applications.  Consider:
>
> 1. An application upgrades its "count" parameters to type MPI_Count for
> all calls to MPI_Send.
>    --> Recall that "MPI_Count" already exists in MPI-3.1, and is likely of
> type (long long) on commodity x86-64 platforms
> 2. The application then uses values in that "count" parameter that are
> greater than 2^32.
>
> If the user's MPI implementation and compiler both support C11 _Generic,
> everything is great.
>
> But if either the MPI implementation or the compiler do not support C11
> _Generic, ***the "count" value will be silently truncated at run time***.
>
> This seems like a very bad idea, from a design standpoint.
>
> We have therefore come full circle: we are back to adding a bunch of "_x"
> functions for C, and there will be no polymorphism (in C).  Sorry, folks.
>
> Note that Fortran does not have similar problems:
>
> 1. Fortran compilers have supported polymorphism for 20+ years
> 2. Fortran does not automatically cast between INTEGER values of different
> sizes
>
> After much debate, the BigCount WG has decided that C11 _Generic just
> isn't worth it.  That's no reason to penalize Fortran, though.
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquy...@cisco.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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