(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3998) [ukfortran] New summary of coarrays

[Craig Dedo]

Everyone:
	I believe that a better wording for the last sentence would be:

	The exact details are left processor dependent.  Therefore,
programmers should read their processor documentation before using atomic
subroutines.

	I believe that "processor documentation" is the recommended term.
Also, breaking it up into two sentences makes it read better.

Sincerely,
Craig T. Dedo
17130 W. Burleigh Place
P. O. Box 423                  Mobile Phone:  (414) 412-5869
Brookfield, WI   53008-0423    E-mail:  <craig at ctdedo.com>
USA


-----Original Message-----
From: j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org] On Behalf
Of N.M. Maclaren
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 04:39
To: wg5
Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3998) [ukfortran] New summary of coarrays

I would add something to the end of section 15.3, along the lines of:

While the atomic subroutines are very simple, their consequences are not, 
and the effect of interleaving atomic actions in multiple images may vary 
between compilers. In some cases, they will appear to be globally 
consistent, but may not do so under all compilers. The exact details are 
intentionally left processor dependent, and programmers should read their 
compiler's release notes before using atomic subroutines.


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

_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at j3-fortran.org
http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3