From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Tue Jun  9 11:39:07 2009
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 03792C178DF; Tue,  9 Jun 2009 11:39:07 +0200 (CET DST)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625C8C178DC
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue,  9 Jun 2009 11:38:41 +0200 (CET DST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:46573)
	by ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1MDxmz-0001q2-K5 (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:38:41 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1MDxmz-0008QY-6v (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:38:41 +0100
Received: from [131.111.10.32] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 09 Jun 2009 10:38:41 +0100
Date: 09 Jun 2009 10:38:41 +0100
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3997) New summary of coarrays
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.1.0906091038410.23982@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20090609092023.32AF5C178DC@www2.open-std.org>
References: <20090609092023.32AF5C178DC@www2.open-std.org>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

I would add something to the end of section 15.3, along the lines of:

While the atomic subroutines are very simple, their consequences are not, 
and the effect of interleaving atomic actions in multiple images may vary 
between compilers. In some cases, they will appear to be globally 
consistent, but may not do so under all compilers. The exact details are 
intentionally left processor dependent, and programmers should read their 
compiler's release notes before using atomic subroutines.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:  nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679

