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.

Best,

Jeff

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan@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 to
> 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 locations
> 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@lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma



--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science@gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/
_______________________________________________
mpiwg-rma mailing list
mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma