Re: [Mpi-forum] C++ types inaccessible after #281
Thank you for changing your tone. I apologize for offending you with the word "eradicate". The term seemed to fit the actual work being done, though, which was essentially search for all "MPI::" and "C++" references in the MPI Standard document and remove them. All this being said, there are some pretty harsh accusations below. I don't feel I deserve them, and am certain that IBM does not. _______________________________________________ Douglas Miller BlueGene Messaging Development IBM Corp., Rochester, MN USA Bldg 030-2 A401 [email protected] Douglas Miller/Rochester/IBM Jeff Hammond <[email protected] l.gov> To Sent by: Main MPI Forum mailing list mpi-forum-bounces <[email protected]>, @lists.mpi-forum. cc org Subject Re: [Mpi-forum] C++ types 06/26/2012 03:11 inaccessible after #281 PM Please respond to Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists. mpi-forum.org> There is a huge difference between deprecating support for C++ _bindings_ and deprecating support for C++ _altogether_. The ticket is about the C++ bindings. What Jed and I are trying to do is make sure that the C _bindings_ allow users to work effectively within C++, which means support std::complex<float/double/long double>. Such support already exists in MPI 2.2, but it requires changing "::" to "_" so that one can use them with the C interface. It is absolutely true that the Forum wants better C++ bindings and will kill the original ones to make this happen. However, you are the first and only person who has suggested that the goal is to remove support for C++ completely. I believe that your statement "I thought the point of 281 was to eradicate C++ from the standard" is completely wrong and made with malice aforethought. You're trying to rewrite history to further your campaign to punish C++ programmers. Many members of the Forum have made it clear that the goal is to support C++ via the C bindings. That does not mean eradicating C++ from the standard. I assume that there will be text expressing the Forum's believe that the C bindings are sufficient for C++, so clearly there should be at least one mention of C++ in the standard. As I said before, the right way to support C++ datatypes for the C bindings is to restrict them to when a C++ compiler is used. That solves your issue with not having a C++ compiler. I don't see why you're arguing about the scenario when you don't have a C++ compiler. Do you really have this use case as an implementer or are you just making up silly arguments as part of your campaign of hate against C++? It is my understanding that your actions in regards to ticket #281 are approved by IBM. If this ticket is not supported by IBM, then it would make me happy to hear this. Jeff On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Douglas Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
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 [email protected] Douglas Miller/Rochester/IBM
Jeff Hammond ---06/26/2012 02:09:59 PM---Jeff Hammond
Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected]
06/26/2012 01:57 PM
Please respond to Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]>
To
Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]>,
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 <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] Douglas Miller/Rochester/IBM
Jeff Hammond ---06/26/2012 12:31:52 PM---Jeff Hammond
Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected]
06/26/2012 12:21 PM
Please respond to Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]> To
Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]>,
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 <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] Douglas Miller/Rochester/IBM
Jed Brown ---06/26/2012 11:26:16 AM---Jed Brown <[email protected]>
Jed Brown <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected]
06/26/2012 11:14 AM
Please respond to
Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]> To
Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]>,
cc Subject
Re: [Mpi-forum] C++ types inaccessible after #281
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Jeff Squyres <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute [email protected] / (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 [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute [email protected] / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond(See attached file: pic08490.gif)_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute [email protected] / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
participants (1)
-
Douglas Miller