From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Mon Mar 24 21:55:16 2014
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 9449E358749; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:55:16 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643C535872E
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:55:15 +0100 (CET)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:33865)
	by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1WSBtr-0006Rt-74 (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:55:15 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1WSBtr-0000h2-59 (Exim 4.72) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:55:15 +0000
Received: from [87.113.109.128] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 24 Mar 2014 20:55:15 +0000
Date: 24 Mar 2014 20:55:15 +0000
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: "sc22wg5@open-std.org" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5197)  (j3.2006)  Ballot on draft DTS
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1403242055150.2090@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20140324204821.77D8535872E@www.open-std.org>
References: <20140312154430.1B7899EB083@www.open-std.org>
 <20140324133031.CC99D35856F@www.open-std.org>
 <20140324160849.220FA356F90@www.open-std.org>
 <20140324204821.77D8535872E@www.open-std.org>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mar 24 2014, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
>
>> Implementing EVENTS is straightforward (arguably trivial) if atomics are 
>> already available, ...
>
>Not and delivering "a defined interpretation" (e.g. ensuring that example
>A.2.1 will make progress).  An atomic set in segment A on image P may not
>become visible to segment B in image Q until segment A is ordered after
>segment B.

Er, segment B is ordered after segment A, of course.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.