(j3.2006) CD ballot process

Van Snyder Van.Snyder
Tue Apr 11 18:17:57 EDT 2017

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 21:59 +0000, Bill Long wrote:
> There have been several good comments that I?ll not repeat, but
> support.  I cannot support one comment (to delete the major new
> feature of locality for DO CONCURRENT). This is a very popular
> feature. We?ve had this discussion before and already decided the
> outcome.   I guess that?s why we will be having a ballot. 

We have in fact not had this discussion.

The first paper on the topic was tabled by subgroup without explanation
or plenary discussion.  The second paper was ruled out of order without
explanation or discussion.

Why do we want a feature that can be (in fact already is) provided by
directives that essentially every processor respects, or that can be
provided by other mechanisms that already exist (declarations within a
BLOCK construct)?

More information about the J3 mailing list