(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3611) Preparing for the Tokyo meeting

[Jim Xia]

j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org wrote on 10/31/2008 12:24:11 PM:

> Bill Long 
> 
> to:
> 
> John.Reid, fortran standards email list for J3
> 
> 10/31/2008 12:22 PM
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org
> 
> Please respond to longb, fortran standards email list for J3
> 
> 
> 
> John Reid wrote:
> > As I see it, the most difficult problems that we need to face in Tokyo 
are:
> >
> > 1. Whether coarrays should be integrated in Part 1.
> >
> > 2. Whether to allow coarrays to be volatile.
> >
> > I have a suggestion re 1, which no-one seems to like (does this 
> mean it might be 
> > suitable as a compromise?!): 
> 
> I reject the idea that additional compromise is needed.  We've voted 
> over and over on this topic and made a massive compromise at the last 
> WG5 meeting to get consensus.  I've read through the new UK papers, and 
> there is no new technical information there to suggest need for 
> substantial changes.   There will always be a few who will never give up 

> their argument that coarrays should not be in the standard.  They need 
> to accept that they have lost and discontinue their rants.
> 


You're not along with this feeling :-).  One question I have here: is 
there concrete evidence that coarray can coexist with MPI?  My concern is 
if there is a conflict between coarray and MPI, then I doubt coarray can 
ever have a chance to be adopted regardless whether coarray is in F08 core 
language.  So it may also be helpful to present some evidence that coarray 
can coexist with MPI.  At least that evidence can further re-enforce my 
belief in coarray.

Cheers,


Jim Xia

RL Fortran Compiler Test
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave, Markham, On, L6G 1C7
Phone (905) 413-3444  Tie-line 313-3444
email: jimxia at ca.ibm.com
D2/YF7/8200 /MKM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20081031/a01a2a90/attachment.html