Are you saying that a C99 compiler won’t complaint if the user passes a 64b
int to a 32b int argument? That’s a pretty stupid compiler if you ask me.
I’m fine with putting MPI C11 in separate header that can #error if C11
isn’t supported. That’s a pretty obvious user experience win that costs
noth
I think the point he wanted to make was that you won't see a
compile-time error if you /think/ you're using the MPI_Count overloads
but are in fact not, i.e., you are modernizing a legacy code base that
is stuck in the nineties and you introduce MPI_Count for size arguments
because the standard
That’s why there will be C90/C99 compatible symbols as well. If you don’t like
C11, don’t use it. Nothing will happen. BigCount will still work.
C11 has been the default in GCC and Clang for a while. What compilers are going
to limit users to C99 for years to come?
Jeff
> On Aug 1, 2019, at 3:
On Jul 30 2019, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum wrote:
B. C11 _Generic polymorphism kinda sucks, *and* we're in a transition
period where not all C compilers are C11-capable. Hence, we're exposing
up to *3* C bindings per MPI procedure to applications (including
explicitly exposing the
