On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:33 PM, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
George Bosilca wrote:
I know the approach "because we can". We develop an MPI library,
and we should keep it that way. Our main focus should not diverge
to provide
I would join George in the minority on this one. "Because we can" is
a slippery slope, there is value in keeping things simple, having
less knobs and bells and whistles.
On this particular whistle, the user could add one line to his MPI
code to define send to ssend and be done with it. If he does not
have the code in the first place, there is nothing he can't do about
it anyway. So, it's just a matter of convenience for a lazy user.
Not quite that simple, Patrick. Think of things like MPI_Sendrecv,
where the "send" call is below that of the user's code.
Frankly, I'm surprised at the fuss this has kicked up. It is a barely
a handful of lines of code, totally protected by a configure switch.
If we spent this much effort arguing over every such small thing,
nearly every configure option that currently exists would never have
made it.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
