Why do you want to make it so damn hard for anyone to use MPI in C++ codes?  You don't even have to do anything to support C++ because BG-MPI is based upon MPICH2.

Can't we just for once try to take user needs into consideration instead of trying to reduce the workload of implementers as much as possible?

Users matter.  In IBM land, they are called customers.  I assure you that some of your largest customers care a great deal about using MPI within C++.  

You're going out of your way to try and punish your customers for using C++.  Can't you just leave them alone?  Maybe we - the customers - need to leave IBM alone.

Jeff

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Douglas Miller <dougmill@us.ibm.com> wrote:

I think the issue is just that how can a standard that does not specify how C++ fits into things (after ticket 281) then go on to define a data type in terms of C++ types? If there is a need for a C (not C++) complex datatype, that should be a new proposal. But that datatype should not, in my opinion, be defined in terms of something like std::complex. If a platform does not support something like C99 complex types, then it will have to implement complex types and ops itself, or be incomplete.




_______________________________________________
Douglas Miller                  BlueGene Messaging Development
IBM Corp., Rochester, MN USA                     Bldg 030-2 A401
dougmill@us.ibm.com               Douglas Miller/Rochester/IBM

Inactive hide details for Jeff Hammond ---06/26/2012 12:31:52 PM---Jeff Hammond <jhammond@alcf.anl.gov>Jeff Hammond ---06/26/2012 12:31:52 PM---Jeff Hammond <jhammond@alcf.anl.gov>


To


cc


Subject

    Re: [Mpi-forum] C++ types inaccessible after #281

as far as i'm concerned, these types are only valid with the C bindings when a C++ compiler is used.  does that solve it?

jeff

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Douglas Miller <dougmill@us.ibm.com> wrote:
    I've got to raise a concern here. If we start defining MPI datatypes to be C++ types then how will an implementation support that with only a C compiler? I thought the point of 281 was to eradicate C++ from the standard (and start over later if C++ was to be defined in the standard).  


    _______________________________________________
    Douglas Miller                  BlueGene Messaging Development
    IBM Corp., Rochester, MN USA                     Bldg 030-2 A401
    dougmill@us.ibm.com               Douglas Miller/Rochester/IBM

    Inactive hide details for Jed Brown ---06/26/2012 11:26:16 AM---Jed Brown <jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov>Jed Brown ---06/26/2012 11:26:16 AM---Jed Brown <jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov>



Please respond to

Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org>
To
cc
Subject

    Re: [Mpi-forum] C++ types inaccessible after #281



--
Jeff Hammond
Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
University of Chicago Computation Institute
jhammond@alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond
https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond(See attached file: pic32424.gif)_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum


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



--
Jeff Hammond
Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
University of Chicago Computation Institute
jhammond@alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond
https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond