From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Fri Dec  5 00:08:55 2008
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id D5130C178DC; Fri,  5 Dec 2008 00:08:55 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA35DC178DA
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri,  5 Dec 2008 00:08:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Attachments: None
Received: from vpna-user-128-15-244-87.llnl.gov (HELO [128.15.244.87]) ([128.15.244.87])
  by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2008 15:08:51 -0800
Message-ID: <49386303.4030501@llnl.gov>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:08:51 -0800
From: Aleksandar Donev <donev1@llnl.gov>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.8) Gecko/20071009 SeaMonkey/1.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3742) Question about ATOMIC_DEFINE
References: <20081204212107.A1805C56CF8@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081204212107.A1805C56CF8@www2.open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Van Snyder wrote:
> Assuming the ATOM argument is a coarray, coindexed object, or
> subcomponent of a coindexed object, Is there ever a time when it should
> not be?
Sure, if you are defining multiple locks, you may want to call SYNC 
MEMORY some time later, when you are done with all the work that does 
not depend on segment boundaries.
I don't see a point in mixing things up here by including the effects of 
image control statements with atomic operations. I also don't see any 
reason to treat co-indexed objects differently.
Best,
Aleks