On Jul 16, 2013, at 22:29 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2013, at 4:22 PM, George Bosilca <bosilca_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Btw, I have a question to you fellow MPI Forum attendees. I just can't remember why the MPI forum felt there was a need for the MPI_Type_get[_true]_extent_x? MPI_Count can't be bigger than MPI_Aint,
> Yes, it can -- it has to be the largest integer type (i.e., it even has to be able to handle an MPI_Offset).
Technicalities! In the entire standard MPI_Offset is only used to access files, not to build datatypes. As such there is no way to have the extent of an datatype bigger than MPI_Aint. Thus, these accessors returning MPI_Count are a useless overkill, as they cannot offer more precision that what the version returning MPI_Aint is already offering.
PS: I hope nobody has the idea to define the MPI_Offset as a signed type
>> so I don't see what is the benefit of extending the MPI_Type_get_true_extent(MPI_Datatype, MPI_Aint*, MPI_Aint*) and MPI_Type_get_extent(MPI_Datatype, MPI_Aint*, MPI_Aint*) with the corresponding _X versions?
> Jeff Squyres
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> devel mailing list