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
> devel mailing list