(j3.2006) question about co-array definition and synchronization

[Aleksandar Donev]

On Wednesday 20 June 2007 11:11, Michael Ingrassia wrote:

> Is this draft-standard-conformable?
Yes, of course :-)

> If so, how does it not fall afoul of the rule [07-007r2:212:4-5]
The first point to make is that the "new" terminology (by new I mean from 
Fairfax meeting) is that each of the X's on each image is a "co-array". So 
don't say "each image defines its local piece of co-array X". Instead, each 
defines the whole of a co-array.

> Should the words say something like "the part of the co-array that is
> defined shall not be referenced, defined or become undefined in a segment
> on another image" ? ?Or are they correct as written?
I already proposed (in private paper drafts) to change this to say "subobject 
of the co-array", but for different reasons. Specifically, we do want to 
allow image 1 to modify X[2](1) and image 2 to modify X[2](2) "concurrently". 
A more realistic example would be each image working on a column of an array. 
I think it is not clear from the way the words are written that this is OK.

Thanks,
Aleks

-- 
Aleksandar Donev, Ph.D.
Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellow @ LLNL
High Performance Computational Materials Science and Chemistry
E-mail: donev1 at llnl.gov
Phone: (925) 424-6816  Fax: (925) 423-0785
Address: P.O.Box 808, L-367, Livermore, CA 94551-9900
Web: http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/donev