From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Apr 6 18:02:44 2015 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 8119D35862B; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:02:44 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A193582F1 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:02:40 +0200 (CEST) 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]:47720) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1Yf9Tz-0005Dj-2K (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:02:39 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1Yf9Tz-0005zP-ME (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:02:39 +0100 Received: from [146.199.140.93] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 06 Apr 2015 17:02:39 +0100 Date: 06 Apr 2015 17:02:39 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: John Reid Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5485) WG5 straw ballot on N2048 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20150406115029.C1CC69DB143@www.open-std.org> References: <20150406115029.C1CC69DB143@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 No, for the following reasons: Not all objections in previous responses have been addressed (see N2045 and the documents it points to). We do not know if it is possible to specify a well-defined consistency model for either events or collectives when called from within functions. We do not know if it is possible to specify the semantics of a complete program if an image fails. We do not know if it is possible to specify a consistency model for the atomic operations that can be implemented with reasonable efficiency without hardware or operating system assistance. We know that there are differing views of the intent of all of those features, and it is therefore vanishingly unlikely that progress on integrating this TS into the main standard will be fast. It is almost certain that, if we proceed according to the schedule, the above aspects will differ between processors in ways that will make it very hard to write portable, or even reliable, programs. I would change my vote to abstain if this TS were not integrated into the next version of the standard. Regards, Nick Maclaren.