[Mpi-22] Ticket #33 (Scalable Graph Topology Interface)

[Barrett, Brian W]

I agree with Bill - I think we should continue to extend the C++ bindings
with new interfaces until at least 3.0.  I think it would be very weird for
users if a feature was available in C and Fortran and not C++.  That being
said, I also think the whole ABI thing is a nice goal, but not one of the
original requirements of the 2.x process, so if something could maybe on
some platform break the ABI compatibility for the C++ bindings, that should
not be disqualifying for the 2.2 process.

Brian

On 6/19/09 9:19 , "William Gropp" <wgropp_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Deprecated doesn't mean removed - we will need some C++ binding for
> the new features.
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 5:31 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 19, 2009, at 5:12 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks. If we decide to deprecate C++ binding, will it still be
>>> updated in the standard to expose the new MPI-2.2 features, or will
>>> it be frozen at the MPI-2.1 level?
>>> 
>> 
>> I'd be in favor of freezing it at 2.1 level -- then many of these ABI
>> issues go away.
>> 
>> --
>> Jeff Squyres
>> Cisco Systems
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpi-22 mailing list
>> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
> 
> William Gropp
> Deputy Director for Research
> Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies
> Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-22 mailing list
> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
> 


--
   Brian W. Barrett
   Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software
   Sandia National Laboratories