Re: [vsipl++] [patch] Kernel updates

[Brooks Moses <brooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jules Bergmann wrote, at 5/28/2008 10:48 AM:
> Stefan,
>> I don't quite understand the purpose of this split. Do you propose we 
>> adhere to the convention of naming these functions always 'input', 
>> 'output', and 'kernel' ? The only reason ALF expects those names is 
>> because you refer to them in the ALF_ACCEL_EXPORT_API macros, and it 
>> would have been enough to put an 'extern "C"' linkage spec in front of 
>> those function definitions, no matter how they are actually named.
> 
> The main intent was to prevent the 23 lines of declaration having to be 
> replicated in every C++ kernel.  It does however require following a 
> naming convention for the routines.  I didn't see that as a bad thing 
> though.  Do you think it will create a problem?
> 
> It's sort of a moot point right now, as C++ kernels don't work with ALF 3.0.

*/me looks at alf_functions.cpp in the SBIR demo code*

*/me is rather confused*

As far as I can tell, C++ kernels seem to work fine with ALF 3.0, so
long as the relevant functions (and the ALF macro stuff at the end) are
wrapped in an 'extern "C"' block.

- Brooks