<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Sure, that sounds pretty reasonable. I just wanted to ask whether it seemed strange to have "std::complex" in there. Seems like (slightly) more than "ticket-0" to me, but should be a simple proposal to write.</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">_______________________________________________<br>
Douglas Miller BlueGene Messaging Development<br>
IBM Corp., Rochester, MN USA Bldg 030-2 A401<br>
dougmill@us.ibm.com Douglas Miller/Rochester/IBM</font><br>
<br>
<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for Jed Brown ---06/26/2012 03:37:28 PM---Jed Brown <jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov>"><font size="2" color="#424282" face="sans-serif">Jed Brown ---06/26/2012 03:37:28 PM---Jed Brown <jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov></font><br>
<br>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr valign="top"><td style="background-image:url(cid:2__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com); background-repeat: no-repeat; " width="40%">
<ul style="padding-left: 72pt"><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><b>Jed Brown <jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov></b></font><font size="1" face="sans-serif"> </font><br>
<font size="1" face="sans-serif">Sent by: mpi-forum-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org</font>
<p><font size="1" face="sans-serif">06/26/2012 03:08 PM</font>
<table border="1">
<tr valign="top"><td width="168" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div align="center"><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org></font></div></td></tr>
</table>
</ul>
</td><td width="60%">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr valign="top"><td width="1%"><img width="58" height="1" src="cid:3__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<div align="right"><font size="1" face="sans-serif">To</font></div></td><td width="100%"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<ul style="padding-left: 7pt"><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org>, </font></ul>
</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td width="1%"><img width="58" height="1" src="cid:3__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<div align="right"><font size="1" face="sans-serif">cc</font></div></td><td width="100%"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td width="1%"><img width="58" height="1" src="cid:3__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<div align="right"><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div></td><td width="100%"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<ul style="padding-left: 7pt"><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: [Mpi-forum] C++ types inaccessible after #281</font></ul>
</td></tr>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr valign="top"><td width="58"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""></td><td width="336"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=09BBF0BADFE24F6E8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""></td></tr>
</table>
</td></tr>
</table>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Douglas Miller <</font><a href="mailto:dougmill@us.ibm.com" target="_blank"><font size="3" color="#0000FF" face="serif"><u>dougmill@us.ibm.com</u></font></a><font size="3" face="serif">> wrote:</font>
<ul style="padding-left: 9pt"><font size="3" face="serif">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? </font></ul>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">Is there an informal expectation that implementations will continue to provide an mpicxx wrapper?</font><br>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">I see no reason for anyone to be attached to std::complex (actually, I think it's very frequently a bad choice), but having *some* way to use complex types with a predefined (because one-sided cripples non-predefined) MPI_Op still seems important.</font><br>
<font size="3" face="serif"> </font>
<ul style="padding-left: 9pt"><font size="3" face="serif">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.</font></ul>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">As mentioned earlier, implementations making MPI_C_COMPLEX available independent of C99 would be sufficient. Otherwise we are stuck defining our own types for complex, and then can't use one-sided.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">Some discussion of work-arounds: </font><a href="http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/mpich2/ticket/1525"><font size="3" color="#0000FF" face="serif"><u>http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/mpich2/ticket/1525</u></font></a><tt><font size="2">_______________________________________________<br>
mpi-forum mailing list<br>
mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org<br>
</font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum</a></font></tt><br>
</body></html>