Hello,
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 16:41, Brian Barrett wrote:
> >> Please raise Your hand if anybody cares.
> >
> > Sun cares very much about this for the exact reason you state (Binary
> > compatibility).
> > I'd prefer this ddt is placed at the end of the list.
>
> I think we should try to avoid bin
On Jun 19, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Terry D. Dontje wrote:
Rainer Keller wrote:
Hello dear all,
with the current numbering in mpif-common.h, the optional ddt
MPI_REAL2 will
break the binary compatibility of the fortran interface from v1.2 to
v1.3
(see r15133).
Now apart from MPI_REAL2 being of let's
Rainer Keller wrote:
Hello dear all,
with the current numbering in mpif-common.h, the optional ddt
MPI_REAL2 will
break the binary compatibility of the fortran interface from v1.2 to
v1.3
(see r15133).
Now apart from MPI_REAL2 being of let's say rather minor importance,
the group
may fea
Hello dear all,
with the current numbering in mpif-common.h, the optional ddt MPI_REAL2 will
break the binary compatibility of the fortran interface from v1.2 to v1.3
(see r15133).
Now apart from MPI_REAL2 being of let's say rather minor importance, the group
may feal that the numbering of data
