From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Oct 22 14:41:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 5668FC76BC4; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:41:59 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.135]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909BAC76BB7 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:41:58 +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-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:55408) by ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.155]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1N0wzN-0006eX-IY (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:41:57 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1N0wzN-0000uI-Nh (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:41:57 +0100 Received: from [131.111.10.32] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 22 Oct 2009 13:41:57 +0100 Date: 22 Oct 2009 13:41:57 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: SC22WG5 Subject: Standard intrinsics and coarrays (NOT random numbers) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20091022115243.E875EC178E4@www2.open-std.org> References: <20091020111544.C0F5CC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091020154252.946EAC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021161933.1B2FCC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021171501.21FA4C178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021175702.E4D26C178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091022043326.83DB9C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022051613.0AEF5C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022062554.CF066C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022115243.E875EC178E4@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Here is an alternative, that I think takes on board Bill's and Van's comments. It does not include the random number issues. In 13.5, Standard generic intrinsic procedures, after Table 13.1, add the new paragraphs: The effects of calling COMMAND_ARGUMENT_COUNT, EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE, GET_COMMAND, GET_COMMAND_ARGUMENT, GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE on any image other than image 1 are processor dependent. [ I dithered over "effects of calling" versus "results returned from", but decided that the former was better because one plausible implementation of these on other images is by a message and response handshake to image 1. ] < Random numbers will be mentioned separately > It is processor dependent whether the results returned from CPU_TIME, DATE_AND_TIME and SYSTEM_CLOCK are dependent on which image calls them. NOTE 13.x This means that it is unspecified whether images use synchronized clocks, whether CPU_TIME returns a per-image or per-program value, whether all images run in the same time zone and whether the count rate and maximum in SYSTEM_CLOCK are the same for all images. The use of all other standard intrinsic procedures in unordered segments is subject only to their argument use following the rules in 8.5.2. In A2, Processor Dependencies, after "how the sequences of atomic actions in unordered segments interleave (13.1)", add the new bullet points: * The effects of calling COMMAND_ARGUMENT_COUNT, EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE, GET_COMMAND, GET_COMMAND_ARGUMENT, GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE on any image other than image 1 (13.5); * whether the results returned from CPU_TIME, DATE_AND_TIME and SYSTEM_CLOCK are dependent on which image calls them (13.5); Regards, Nick Maclaren.