[mpiwg-rma] same_op_no_op

[Jeff Hammond]

So do we want to prohibit diff op atomicity in all cases or is that
the default?  I think many implementations won't care but the
RMA-in-hardware ones really want same_op_no_op_replace or less (as in
more restrictive).

Jeff

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because it's an info key, we can't make the relax the semantic, we can only
> restrict it.  So, the most permissive semantic needs to be the default.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Dave Goodell (dgoodell)
> <dgoodell at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > same_op_no_op_replace might not be completely SHMEM-compliant but it
>> > almost certainly meets the needs of reasonable SHMEM programs.  Right
>> > now, the incompatibility of REPLACE and <any reduce op> puts me in a
>> > very bad place for essentially all PGAS models.
>>
>> Wouldn't you be in a perfectly fine place if we just add
>> "same_op_no_op_replace" to the standard and then you modify your codes to
>> use it?
>>
>> I really don't understand your insistence on changing the default
>> behavior...
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpiwg-rma mailing list
>> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma



-- 
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com