From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Aug 9 11:28:17 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 DB9CC357215; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:28:16 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D073E35695C for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:27:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r799Rh44005073 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 09:27:49 GMT (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Message-ID: <2603B3DEB39D4A67BFF24C38CA6402C2@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" References: <20130804194733.55AAA357194@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20130804194733.55AAA357194@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5056) WG5 ballots Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:27:43 +0900 Organization: =?utf-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk >Please answer the following question "Is N1983 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. No. Reason 1: With the introduction of cross-team access and synchronisation, the TEAM concept has become too complicated and unwieldy. Those who need cross-team access and synchronisation issues are, IMO, better served by using simple arrays of image numbers - lots of discussion at the meeting was about manually aligning the teams and coarrays and image numbers, and all that just goes away if you use image number lists (and it is far from clear that the new facilities invented out of whole cloth at the meeting satisfy the concerns expressed - my impression is certainly that they do not). Reason 2: There needs to be an explicit memory model for atomics so that users are clearly told if and when causality may be violated and vendors are clearly told what the requirements are on their implementation. Handwaving it all away as "processor dependent" is a disservice to everyone - some of the users will think that some rational rules apply, and some of the vendors will provide facilities that don't obey those apparently-rational rules (reasonable people might differ on whether particular rules are "reasonable"!). >4) Abstain. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.