On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:40:43PM -0500, Pavan Balaji wrote:
On 09/23/2011 12:39 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
It clarifies semantics for separate (the first part) and the advice to implementers makes the semantic restriction explicit.
What I mean is -- how will an MPI implementation on non-cache-coherent system be able to expose shared memory with this restriction?
Our decision was: Either expose non-cacheable memory or not at all. Well, the decision is not final, it's very easy to add a rule that says that the outcome of conflicting remote/local load/store accesses is undefined. Torsten PS: Sorry for my sluggish response, we're all stuck on an island with internet issues ... ;-) -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC) 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801 NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736