[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [mpi-21] MPI_Pcontrol

To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [mpi-21] MPI_Pcontrol
From: Purushotham Bangalore <puri@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:47:26 -0600 (CST)
Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21-outgoing@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
In-reply-to: <6B68D01C00C9994A8E150183E62A119E6F9B943600@NA-EXMSG-C105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Reply-to: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nice work there.  

This appears on both page 203 (section 8.3.1) and page 221 (Appendix A.8) in the MPI 1.1 document. 

I tried to search for const in the PDF version of the document and found an example in the same chapter, page 204, that has const int count. Not sure how the const made it's way there also.

I guess these need to be added to the errata. 

Puri

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erez Haba" <erezh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:58:37 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago
Subject: [mpi-21] MPI_Pcontrol



What was the idea behind defining the C interface for MPI_Pcontrol as, 

MPI_Pcontrol( const int leve l , â ) 

Adding the const was a joke, right? Itâs completely meaningless. 

Btw: all those that are worried about compilers compliant with the const keyword, here you go. We have const in the mpi.h header from MPI v1. The mpi C/C++ compilers are able to handle that keyword. 

Thanks, 
.Erez

References:
- [mpi-21] MPI_Pcontrol
  - From: Erez Haba

Prev by Date: [mpi-21] MPI_Pcontrol
Next by Date: RE: [mpi-21] ABI - call for working group
Previous by thread: [mpi-21] MPI_Pcontrol
Next by thread: Re: [mpi-21] MPI_Pcontrol
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread