From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Wed Apr 16 20:34:24 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 53A353584EB; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:34:24 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (smtp.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.109])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874F235706E
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:34:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57])
	by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id s3GIYIVx004473
	(using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256 bits) verified NO)
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:34:20 -0700
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5227) Votes on draft TS
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140416091114.817BA3580E5@www.open-std.org>
References: <20140416091114.817BA3580E5@www.open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Organization: Yes
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:34:18 -0700
Message-ID: <1397673258.3684.240.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-30.el6) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 10:11 +0100, John Reid wrote:
> Here is the first draft result of our vote. Have I got all the votes
> and have I copied them correctly? Please let me know of any errors by
> 9.a.m. Friday 18 April.

This item in my ballot

> [16:1-16] Notwithstanding "the effect of each change is as if it
> occurred instantaneously" at [15:8-9], it seems to be necessary to say
> that steps (2) and (3) of the EVENT WAIT statement execute as if in a
> critical section, because testing its value isn't part of "each change
> ... occurred instantaneously."  Otherwise, if two images execute EVENT
> WAIT statements, when another image posts an event, it is possible that
> both of them notice the threshold is exceeded, both stop waiting, and both
> reduce the event count, the result being that the event count becomes
> negative.  Indeed, it might be necessary to say this about some other
> image control statements, at least ALLOCATE, DEALLOCATE, and calls to
> MOVE_ALLOC.  If so, can it be done here, or is an interp needed?

is not needed.  The event variable in an EVENT WAIT statement cannot be
coindexed, so only one image can wait on a particular event variable.