(j3.2006) Paper submission

[Bill Long]

On 6/12/11 11:16 PM, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> Bill Long wrote:
>> Just as a general policy, it is not acceptable to try to edit 10-007r1 by
>> slipping edits into Clause 6 of the N1854 that are not related to the TR.

I stand by my  objection.  There is nothing in the TR text (Clauses 1-5) 
related to this, and Craig's paper did not include edits to insert 
anything there.   The point of Clause 6 is to provide the edits that 
incorporate the rest of the TR into 10-007r1.  Edits that have no 
reference to anything in the TR are not acceptable.

>> This should be modified to be a paper with edits to 10-007r1 and go into the
>> pool of proposals for the next revision.
>
> I think this is a spectacularly unhelpful response to a proposal to handle a
> real problem with interoperating with companion processors, viz the asynchronous
> updating of Fortran entities caused by the companion processor.
>
> This possibility is not limited to MPI or new things like OpenCL but includes
> the asynchronous i/o primitives found in most operating systems and available
> through most C compilers.  Such primitives have even been available in ordinary
> retail operating systems like *BSD, Linux and Windows for well over a decade.
>
> In fact IIRC we already debated this in the context of how can we support MPI,
> and decided at that to handle this in the TR.
>

My recollection is that the MPI group specifically withdrew this 
request, and decided to not use ASYNCHRONOUS in the new MPI interface. 
So, the urgency is no longer there.

> So I strongly disagree that this is a priori off the table.  On the contrary, we
> have already been dinged on our apparent lack of action to support our earlier
> decision and communication with the MPI community!  We would do ourselves no
> favour by continuing to take no action on this issue.
>

I am not a priori opposed to considering this.  However, it is a new 
feature that is not related to the purpose of the TR (interoperability 
of interfaces with assumed-shape. allocatable, pointer, and optional 
arguments).  At some point we have to stop adding new features and 
finish the TR. I think this should be considered as part of the next 
standard - it even fits well into the idea of a "corrections" proposal.

This topic is squarely in the /Data bin.  If the /Data subgroup can come 
up with an acceptable rewrite of the paper within the first couple of 
days of the meeting, I may soften my procedural objection.

Cheers,
Bill


> Cheers,

-- 
Bill Long                                           longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &                 voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development            fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101