> It is currently implemented in a more efficient way -- with a single global > lock. It is more efficient because not all of the activities are blocked > -- only those that try to enter an atomic section while another activity > is in an atomic section. This is only actually compatible with the stop > the world semantics if all shared variable accesses are inside an atomic > block. This is of course the difference between weak/strong semantics for > atomic sections. We may well forget to mention that in the spec, in which > case we should add it, because requiring strong semantics is way too > restrictive.
Hi, just to make sure I understand it right: 1) An X10 program is only correct if all accesses to shared variables, including all read accesses, are inside an atomic. 2) (Concluding from the samples), an exception to this rule is accesses that occur after finish, i.e., when there is only one activity left that may access the variable. 3) To achieve 2), it seems to me as that X10 does not have something like the temporary view of the OpenMP memory model, but all accesses go directly to memory. Is this correct? Thanks, Claudia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: WikiLeaks The End of the Free Internet http://p.sf.net/sfu/therealnews-com _______________________________________________ X10-users mailing list X10-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/x10-users
