> The only question I had when reading over your note was whether
> there would be conflicts with things in MPI-1. I believe there
> are none. Am I correct that the situation is:
> 1. We are already proposing functions with new names that
> reproduce MPI-1 functionality for communicators and extend
> it for other types. (The old functions remain, but are effectively
> deprecated, as with the datatype constructors with MPI_Aint arguments).
Correct. In all truthfulness, I would prefer just *one* set of functions
(i.e. not essentially the same functions replicated 3 times), but I think
it's too late to change that. So therefore, I'm proposing this
compromise.
> 2. The names of your new proposed typedefs have been carefully chosen to
> also not conflict with the MPI-1 names.
Correct.
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} squyres@cse.nd.edu
{+} Perpetual Obsessive Notre Dame Student Craving Utter Madness
{+} "I came to ND for 4 years and ended up staying for a decade"