(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3661) [ukfortran] N1755: Request for new features from MPI Forum

[N.M. Maclaren]

On Nov 11 2008, Aleksandar Donev wrote:
>
>> With your proposal, the compiler has to assume that fred may have 
>> changed. Currently, it does not.
>
> Wouldn't adding a new attribute ASYNC_EXTERNAL or some such fix this? 
> This is one of the options mentioned.

Possibly.  But designing a new semantic concept needs a lot of thought.

>> Consider the restrictions on VOLATILE arguments (e.g. no VALUE and no 
>> INTENT(IN), and the proposal to require it to be set in all scopes or 
>> none). How many of those would you need to add to ASYNCHRONOUS in order 
>> to close loopholes opened by your proposal?
>
>Most of those restrictions apply to *both* VOLATILE and ASYNCHRONOUS (see 
>Clause 12). If they don't, it is probably an existing bug in the standard!

Those don't, and it's not a bug, if you think why the restrictions are
there.  They don't need to apply to ASYNCHRONOUS, but do to VOLATILE.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:  nmm1 at cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679