From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Wed Jul  5 21:43:29 2017
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 E2E1E3581F6; Wed,  5 Jul 2017 21:43:29 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (smtp.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.109])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A12E35695B
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed,  5 Jul 2017 21:43:26 +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 v65JhNnS031142
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO)
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 12:43:24 -0700
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5889) 3 levels of parallelism?
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHSokPwxYxdNMrUZ+o2zb56nphhvCM5RSZ7_ww135UyRh5cicw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170705131003.C2A753587D1@www.open-std.org>
	 <677196EB-62B3-448D-8AD9-6D0E36BAFD32@cray.com>
	 <888EAD5C-B10E-4E55-9F63-35F1BBE2F342@nasa.gov>
	 <CAHSokPwxYxdNMrUZ+o2zb56nphhvCM5RSZ7_ww135UyRh5cicw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Organization: Yes
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 12:43:23 -0700
Message-ID: <1499283803.2359.10.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-37.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, 2017-07-05 at 13:30 -0600, Keith Bierman wrote:
> Compiling directly to the FPGA would be nice; but assuming that's
> still done in verilog ... I assume coroutines would be our best
> bet ... any other obvious approaches (that someone is prepared to say
> anything about ... without an NDA ;>). 

Coroutines have numerous other applications.  William Wulf remarked on
their applications to parallelism more than thirty years ago.  The way
we designed them for their short life on the 2008 wish list they were
inherently thread safe, provided they were pure, and were invoked using
a procedure pointer.