[mpiwg-rma] Ticket #458
james.dinan at gmail.com
Fri Feb 6 11:19:24 CST 2015
I believe this ticket exists because an implementer asked if any outcome
was allowed, including the machine catching on fire. It seems useful to
clarify what we mean by outcome, since we use this term throughout the text.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com>
> I think the chapter committee should handle this. I think the current
> text is obvious enough that no one is going to screw it up, but that
> the clarification has value and thus should be implemented.
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > The following ticket is marked as MPI 3.0 errata, but appears not to have
> > gone forward for a vote:
> > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/458
> > Did we either abandon this or decide that it should be handled by the
> > chapter committee? It seems likely that it was the latter and I forgot
> > update the ticket. Just want to make sure it doesn't get lost in the
> > shuffle.
> > Thanks,
> > ~Jim.
> > ---8<---
> > Here is the proposed change.
> > Existing Text (Pg. 418, line 44):
> > The outcome of concurrent conflicting accesses to the same memory
> > is undefined...
> > Proposed Change
> > The resulting data values, or outcome, of concurrent conflicting
> accesses to
> > the same memory locations is undefined...
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mpiwg-rma