(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5486) [ukfortran] WG5 straw ballot on N2048

[N.M. Maclaren]

No, for the following reasons:

Not all objections in previous responses have been addressed (see
N2045 and the documents it points to).

We do not know if it is possible to specify a well-defined consistency
model for either events or collectives when called from within
functions.

We do not know if it is possible to specify the semantics of a complete
program if an image fails.

We do not know if it is possible to specify a consistency model for the
atomic operations that can be implemented with reasonable efficiency
without hardware or operating system assistance.

We know that there are differing views of the intent of all of those
features, and it is therefore vanishingly unlikely that progress on
integrating this TS into the main standard will be fast.

It is almost certain that, if we proceed according to the schedule,
the above aspects will differ between processors in ways that will
make it very hard to write portable, or even reliable, programs.

I would change my vote to abstain if this TS were not integrated into
the next version of the standard.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.