(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5144) [ukfortran] From WG9 minutes

[John Reid]

N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> On Dec 10 2013, Van Snyder wrote:
>
>> From Canada's national body report to the WG9 (Ada) meeting in
>> Pittsburgh Friday 15 November 2013:
>>
>>        In Canada's previous national body report to WG9, it was
>>        proposed that Canada would initiate a request to SC22 at its
>>        September plenary to form a study group to determine the
>>        feasibility of creating a parallelism model that could be shared
>>        between programming languages. Such a model ideally would allow
>>        for optimal use of the system processing resources and avoid
>>        over-subscription of parallelism.
>>
>>        The request was made at the plenary, but SC22 declined to create
>>        such a study group, and instead encouraged other languages to
>>        participate in CPLEX.
>
> As I have said before, I don't think that it is a feasible objective,
> as there are several fundamentally different models involved, but I do
> agree that studying the issue is a good idea.  Can anyone Email me a
> link to the CPLEX referred to here, as a simple search gets a lot of
> false positives?

This is what I said in my report from the SC22 meeting (N1993):

"3. Fine-grained parallelism

There was some discussion of fine-grained parallelism and we are 
encouraged to participate in the web-based C Parallel Language 
Extensions Study Group (CPLX). To do this, please contact the WG 14 
Convenor, John Benito, benito at bluepilot.com. Conveners are asked to 
report on this at the 2014 plenary, so please let me have your thoughts. 
I will contact John myself. I explained about our TS,
including our plans for support of continued execution with failed images."

This does remind me that I have not contacted John Benito. Will do that 
now.

John.



>
> In particular, I believe that WG5 should at least keep in touch with
> initiatives on SIMD and tasking models (message-passing is already
> covered).  Fortran is ahead of the pack on the former, and it would be
> a good idea to maintain that position!  And at least some simple forms
> of the latter would be easy - which is not to say that they should be
> standardised.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ukfortran mailing list
> http://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran