(j3.2006) TR: asynchronous

John Reid John.Reid
Wed Jun 15 17:43:38 EDT 2011

Bill Long wrote:
> On 6/12/11 11:16 PM, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>> 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.
> I appreciate that someone could call the C aio* routines within a
> subroutine and the effect would be the same as if the equivalent Fortran
> I/O had been executed asynchronously. I'm not clear on how calling aio*
> routines are any different from the following:
> Real,asynchronous :: buf (1000)
> ! Inside read_sub there is an asynchronous READ statement for buf on unit 9
> call read_sub (buf,1000, 9)
> !...
> ! Inside wait_sub there is a WAIT statement on unit 9
> call wait_sub(9)
> If we get this all-Fortran case right, why would we not get the aio*
> case right as well?
> If the problem is as trivial as vendor's currently ignoring
> ASYNCHRONOUS, that should be easy to fix. However, the TR still needs a
> "2.4 ASYNCHRONOUS attribute" in Clause 2 explaining the requirement.

I have uploaded a paper that does just this. It is 11-202 (and 203/4/5, 
unfortunately), based on interop. email discussion from April.


More information about the J3 mailing list