Track 2 is tools.
> On May 28, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Jithin Jose via mpi-forum
> Hi Marc Andre,
> We are just setting it up, please wait for a few more minutes.
> -Original Message-
> From: mpi-forum On Behalf Of
> Marc-Andre Hermanns via mpi-forum
On Jul 31, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> It’s a long email to read on my phone while on vacation.
Then stop reading on your phone while on vacation and defer this until next
> If you don’t say C++, there’s no reason OMPI and MPICH can’t do the obvious,
> trivial and
On Jul 31, 2019, at 10:52 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> You’re going to have to mention C++. You can’t just pretend that C++ supports
> C11 generic, because it explicitly doesn’t.
We are mentioning C++. Please re-read my prior email.
> And you really should do this because it’s ridiculous
On Jul 31, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Joseph Schuchart via mpi-forum
> Should we mark in the interface the fact that the MPI_Count overloads are
> only available in C11? I'm thinking about something similar to cppreference's
> distinction between C/C++ standard versions, e.g.,
This was discovered after the 2-week window for the Zurich meeting. If this
can't make it into the Zurich meeting agenda, please put it on the meeting
agenda for December.
It's a trivial one-word fix in the language-neutral binding for
MPI_UNPACK_EXTERNAL -- needs to be applied to both the
> Get Outlook for Android
> From: mpi-forum on behalf of Jeff
> Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 11:13:09 AM
> To: MPI Forum list
> Cc: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> Subject: [Mpi-forum] "BigCount" rendering in PDF
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
On Jul 31, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Jeff Hammond 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
On Jul 31, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> “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?
Is there a way to have C++ overloading call the same symbols that we'll
1. C11 _Generic support in an MPI implementation has to be optional, at least
for now, because not all compilers support C11 _Generic (just like the F08
bindings are still optional, and just like aspects of the C++ bindings were
optional back in the '90s when C++ compilers still
Slides 12 and 15 from the "Big Count" presentation today have links to sample
PDFs showing the different options for rendering the MPI function bindings both
throughout the text and in Annex A.
We're sending you these links so that you can view these PDFs on your own
Pythonization (THIS WILL AFFECT ANYONE WHO WORKS IN THE LATEX!):
Mail list logo