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

John Reid John.Reid
Wed Apr 16 15:41:31 EDT 2014


I have removed this from your vote in N2013.


Van Snyder wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

More information about the J3 mailing list