From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,904e84d5dc020db1 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.17.140 with SMTP id s12mr1642124qaa.3.1360884719771; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:31:59 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.95.68 with SMTP id di4mr29244qeb.0.1360884719751; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:31:59 -0800 (PST) Path: k2ni33058qap.0!nntp.google.com!t1no692387qaz.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:31:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <947b0951-54e4-4a4d-bd26-760eb66390c3@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Question about concurrent access to array From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:31:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2013-02-14T15:31:59-08:00 List-Id: 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