From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Apr 8 02:51:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id F38F9356DEA; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 02:51:27 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from exprod6og118.obsmtp.com (exprod6og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.233]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B93356A9C for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 02:51:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from CFWEX01.americas.cray.com ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob118.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUWIUjF0szbmWWWO/4e6nC7eiM2okqd4K@postini.com; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:51:26 PDT Received: from bill-longs-macbook-pro.local (192.168.233.222) by CFWEX01.americas.cray.com (172.30.88.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:51:25 -0500 Message-ID: <51621515.50000@cray.com> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:53:41 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sc22wg5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4924) WG5 ballot on first draft TS 18508, Additional Parallel Features in Fortran References: <20130308120458.DEF90356DB5@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20130308120458.DEF90356DB5@www.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 On 3/8/13 6:06 AM, John Reid wrote: > Please answer the following question "Is N1967 ready for forwarding to > SC22 as the DTS?" in one of these ways. > > 1) Yes. > 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. > 3) No, for the following reasons. > 4) Abstain. No, N1967 is not ready for a DTS ballot because, based on the ballots submitted so far, it would likely fail such a ballot. Several people have raised issues that require more discussion and consensus before the TS is ready for a DTS vote. I'll not repeat all of the other ballot comments here, but would like to point out a few - 1) Should we add a CO_PRODUCT collective subroutine? Editorial disruption for this is minimal, so the question is between need/value and additional clutter in Clause 13. 2) A proposed modification to the TEAM facility needs discussion. If we adopt the idea, there appear to be material side-effects to the base memory model (such as SYNC ALL statements not executing on all images that could affect local variable values). 3) There are general concerns that the memory model aspects of the new features are not adequately specified. 4) Additional examples in the Annex would be helpful. (This was a known deficiency going into the ballot.) Cheers, Bill -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101