From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Dec 9 09:00:08 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 3DE4F3581D3; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:00:08 +0100 (CET) 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 DA01E356A4F for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:00:05 +0100 (CET) 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 rB97xwYv054773 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 08:00:02 GMT (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Message-ID: <724EA574E9C046C4A8FEEB96FF35A5BE@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: References: <20131107223812.7654C3581D9@www.open-std.org> <20131206191000.5CC109DB116@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20131206191000.5CC109DB116@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5129) Vote on revised draft DTS Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:00:01 +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 >Is N1996 ready for forwarding to SC22 as the DTS? 3) No, for the following reasons. a. The design is still under active technical development; in particular, - the team design has not reached consensus, with additional features and changes being requested, - the team design needs (at a minimum) much more explanation, - the event design has been recently changed, and it is far from clear that the new version is correctly described and sufficient for purpose. b. Many technical and editorial problems and ambiguities as reported by others. I continue to be of the opinion that an explicit formal memory model for atomics would be a very good idea, but would not vote No purely on that alone. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.