From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Aug 5 22:16:09 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 22D6B3571FD; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:16:09 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [143.182.124.37]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107603569AA for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:15:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2013 13:15:43 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,820,1367996400"; d="scan'208,217";a="342068168" Received: from fmsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.19.9.37]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2013 13:15:43 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx114.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.8) by FMSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.19.9.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:15:43 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.253]) by FMSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.2]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:15:43 -0700 From: "Lionel, Steve" To: "sc22wg5@open-std.org" Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5057) [ukfortran] WG5 vote on draft TS on further coarray features Thread-Topic: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5057) [ukfortran] WG5 vote on draft TS on further coarray features Thread-Index: Ac6SDWuMxYzJMTvnSnaQab3MPax3mg== Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 20:15:42 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.200.107] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C87D5B0E7F671B4E97839637C460168E16049C82FMSMSX102amrcor_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --_000_C87D5B0E7F671B4E97839637C460168E16049C82FMSMSX102amrcor_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is my vote - I'm not taking a position on the other issues being discu= ssed on the list right now. Please answer the following question "Is N1983 ready for forwarding to SC22 as the DTS?" in one of these ways. 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. On page 11, R507 "form-team-spec" should be "form-subteam-spec" (probably l= eft over from an older draft) Events - I'd like to see a note or some wording specifying what happens if = more than one image is waiting for an event to be posted. Say images 2 and = 3 are sitting at an EVENT_WAIT with the event count at 0. Image 1 calls EVE= NT_POST once for the event. Do both images 2 and 3 proceed? I hope not, but= I don't see anything to suggest one way or the other. (Perhaps also wordin= g saying that if more than one image is waiting, the order in which they ar= e released is implementation-dependent.) 7.4.1 (ATOMIC_ADD) - change "ATOM becomes defined with the value of ATOM + = VALUE." To "ATOM becomes defined with the value of ATOM + INT(VALUE,ATOMIC_= INT_KIND)." Or is the intent that the normal mixed-mode arithmetic and as= signment rules apply? This seems rather ugly to me, and "becomes defined wi= th the value" is not intrinsic assignment. Steve Lionel Intel Corporation Merrimack, NH --_000_C87D5B0E7F671B4E97839637C460168E16049C82FMSMSX102amrcor_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here is my vote – I’m not taking a posit= ion on the other issues being discussed on the list right now.

Please answer the following question "Is N1983 = ready for forwarding to

SC22 as the DTS?" in one of these ways.

2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. =

On page 11, R507 “form-team-spec” should= be “form-subteam-spec” (probably left over from an older draft= )

Events – I’d like to see a note or some = wording specifying what happens if more than one image is waiting for an ev= ent to be posted. Say images 2 and 3 are sitting at an EVENT_WAIT with the = event count at 0. Image 1 calls EVENT_POST once for the event. Do both images 2 and 3 proceed? I hope not, but I don’= ;t see anything to suggest one way or the other. (Perhaps also wording sayi= ng that if more than one image is waiting, the order in which they are rele= ased is implementation-dependent.)

7.4.1 (ATOMIC_ADD) – change “ATOM become= s defined with the value of ATOM + VALUE.” To “ATOM becomes= defined with the value of ATOM + INT(VALUE,ATOMIC_INT_KIND).”&nb= sp; Or is the intent that the normal mixed-mode arithmetic and assign= ment rules apply? This seems rather ugly to me, and “becomes defined with the v= alue” is not intrinsic assignment.

Steve Lionel

Intel Corporation=

Merrimack, NH

--_000_C87D5B0E7F671B4E97839637C460168E16049C82FMSMSX102amrcor_--