Jeff, This is inappropriate. Especially targeting IBM like that, and on a public mailing list. Ticket 281 has had plenty of discussions and passed votes. This is/was a Forum decision. The fact that I agreed with it, and volunteered to do a lot of the work, is why I am voicing my opinion on this. We (the Forum) have said all along that anyone that has a better design for C++ bindings should bring that forward and make a proposal. Getting rid of the current, often considered "broken", C++ bindings is a good way to ensure any future proposal is free to change the design.

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

Jeff Hammond ---06/26/2012 02:09:59 PM---Jeff Hammond <jhammond@alcf.anl.gov>

Jeff Hammond <jhammond@alcf.anl.gov>
Sent by: mpi-forum-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org
06/26/2012 01:57 PM

Please respond to
Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org>

To

Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org>,

cc

Subject

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

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

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

Jeff Hammond <jhammond@alcf.anl.gov>
Sent by: mpi-forum-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org
06/26/2012 12:21 PM

Please respond to
Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org>

To

Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org>,

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

Jed Brown ---06/26/2012 11:26:16 AM---Jed Brown <

jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov

Jed Brown <

jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov

Sent by:

mpi-forum-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org

06/26/2012 11:14 AM

Please respond to

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

To	Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org>,
cc
Subject	Re: [Mpi-forum] C++ types inaccessible after #281

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Jeff Squyres <

jsquyres@cisco.com

> wrote:

There are a few C++-specific datatypes for which it would be worth introducing new C datatypes (e.g., MPI_CXX_COMPLEX). It's too bad that no one realized this until now, because this won't make the MPI-3 deadline. But it could be part of MPI-3.1 or errata, or some such.

Two people in offline discussions have suggested that C bindings to the std::complex types (I'm not aware of anything else that #281 will lose) might qualify as ticket 0.

_______________________________________________ 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