[Mpi3-rma] MPI-3 UNIFIED model clarification

[Pavan Balaji]

On 07/31/2013 12:00 PM, Jim Dinan wrote:
> I would bet that past Jim suggested striking the polling/eventually
> visibile clause and relying on window synchronization to see updates.
>   :)

Yup, so did past, present, and future Pavan.  IMO, that's a useless 
guarantee.

> The downside to this is that libraries like SHMEM that rely on
> passive progress and polling, would not be implementable on top of Unified.

It's pretty useless even for SHMEM, since the user doesn't know when the 
data is valid.  You could poll on a byte for it to turn to one, but at 
that point you only know about that one byte and nothing else.

-- 
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji