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

[Jed Brown]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Douglas Miller <dougmill at 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?


Is there an informal expectation that implementations will continue to
provide an mpicxx wrapper?

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.


> 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.


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.

Some discussion of work-arounds:
http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/mpich2/ticket/1525
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20120626/864c72b1/attachment-0001.html>