(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4481) [ukfortran] Added atomic

Craig Dedo craig
Fri Jun 17 17:28:44 EDT 2011

	Even if Nick's concern is not valid, there is another concern:  conceptual
simplicity.  A swap is conceptually simple.  Using some other mechanism to accomplish a
swap is more indirect and therefore more complicated conceptually.

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>
Linked-In:? http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdedo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of
> N.M. Maclaren
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 15:55
> To: sc22wg5
> Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4481) [ukfortran] Added atomic
> On Jun 17 2011, Bill Long wrote:
> >
> >The list of comments on the coarray TR from Rice suggested adding a SWAP
> >atomic subroutine.    The list in 11-200 includes all of the "common"
> >atomic operations except one: atomic andxor. I'm inclined to add that
> >one, which would make SWAP unnecessary. Or we could add both.  For those
> >who are not big amo users...
> >
> >...
> >
> >If this is added, is there a need for a separate atomic_swap?
> Swapping works reliably and portably when one integer may be negative;
> XOR doesn't.
> Regards,
> Nick.
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

More information about the J3 mailing list