(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5228) Votes on draft TS

Van Snyder Van.Snyder
Wed Apr 16 14:34:18 EDT 2014

On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 10:11 +0100, John Reid wrote:
> Here is the first draft result of our vote. Have I got all the votes
> and have I copied them correctly? Please let me know of any errors by
> 9.a.m. Friday 18 April.

This item in my ballot

> [16:1-16] Notwithstanding "the effect of each change is as if it
> occurred instantaneously" at [15:8-9], it seems to be necessary to say
> that steps (2) and (3) of the EVENT WAIT statement execute as if in a
> critical section, because testing its value isn't part of "each change
> ... occurred instantaneously."  Otherwise, if two images execute EVENT
> WAIT statements, when another image posts an event, it is possible that
> both of them notice the threshold is exceeded, both stop waiting, and both
> reduce the event count, the result being that the event count becomes
> negative.  Indeed, it might be necessary to say this about some other
> image control statements, at least ALLOCATE, DEALLOCATE, and calls to
> MOVE_ALLOC.  If so, can it be done here, or is an interp needed?

is not needed.  The event variable in an EVENT WAIT statement cannot be
coindexed, so only one image can wait on a particular event variable.

More information about the J3 mailing list