Hi Jesper,
p.50, line 20 (or elsewhere), add: "Completion of a particular nonblocking collective operations does \emph{not} imply completion of any other posted nonblocking collective (or send-receive) operations, whether they are posted before or after the operation in case." hmm, I think this clarification is unnecessary because similar things would apply to nonblocking point-to-point and are not mentioned there (and the semantics are clearly defined). We have Example 5.34 to make this clear, but I'd rather not introduce this to the introductory text.
I think it is a fairly important semantic issue, and should be said somewhere. The (good) example comes at the end of the chapter. ok, I put it on the agenda for today's meeting.
I'd propose to stay with the reviewed phrasing.
Maybe Bronis look it over? Again, the "identical" phrase is in my opinion bad (but you changed that). hmm, I'd still argue for its correctness.
p.68, line 21: does a race condition "cause" non-determinism, or is it the other way round? I think it's correct because it might match correctly, however, if the race is done in the wrong order, then it's wrong. The casual chain is here: programming mistake -> race condition -> nondeterminism
and that's not really what the caption says. I suggest a rewording, will try and come up with something hmm, we can discuss this as well on the telco -> added it to agenda
Thanks & Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Postdoctoral Researcher Open Systems Lab | Indiana University 150 S. Woodlawn Ave. | Bloomington, IN, 474045, USA Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608