It’s a long email to read on my phone while on vacation. You just need a sentence that says C++ compilers support C bindings, including the C11 generic stuff, just using a very different mechanism. Is that going to delay MPI-4? In any case, all the issues with polymorphism is exactly why it’s so important to have explicit symbols for C89/C99 usage so that implementations can add extensions that do the polymorphism stuff if it doesn’t get voted in. If you don’t say C++, there’s no reason OMPI and MPICH can’t do the obvious, trivial and intelligent thing. Jeff Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:03 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Jul 31, 2019, at 10:52 AM, Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> 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 not to use C++ polymorphism if we use C11’s.

There are three options:

1. Re-introduce C++ bindings, delay MPI-4. 2. Re-introduce C++ bindings, BigCount misses the MPI-4 train. 4. Do not re-introduce C++ bindings, BigCount catches the MPI-4 train.

The feedback from the Forum was that BigCount was a blocker/gating issue for MPI-4. Hence, this is why the BigCount WG is not planning at this time to re-introduce C++ bindings via BigCount.

There is a longer term plan (think: MPI-5) to introduce a full-featured set of C++ bindings to MPI -- one that does not necessarily have a 1:1 correspondence to the C bindings. That is a different, much longer effort, and will definitely not make it into MPI-4.

-- Jeff Squyres [email protected]