From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Subject: Re: Question about concurrent access to array
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:31:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2013-02-14T15:31:59-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e6c99c16-e511-463f-a842-926f9b5be43b@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <wcchale5zpm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:53:57 PM UTC-8, Robert A Duff wrote:
> >...Otherwise
> > there's the risk that two consecutive array elements that "belong" to
> > different tasks might share part of a "word" (or something), and the
> > code to write into an element might involve reading the entire word,
> > modifying part of the word, then writing it back.
>
> That would be incorrect code generation, assuming there's no Pack
> or Component_Size clause.
You're right. I missed the clause in 9.10 that specifies that.
-- Adam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-14 23:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-14 20:39 Question about concurrent access to array john
2013-02-14 21:29 ` Adam Beneschan
2013-02-14 21:53 ` Robert A Duff
2013-02-14 23:31 ` Adam Beneschan [this message]
2013-02-15 9:11 ` cjpsimon
2013-02-14 21:41 ` Niklas Holsti
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox