Re: alt. proposal

Eric Salo (salo@mrjones.engr.sgi.com)
Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:38:31 -0700

> Thanks for re-clarifying the alt. proposal Marc. In addition to
> simplifying the interface, I like that it is explicit about the two
> programming styles: barriers, and the shared memory approach using
> locks. For portable systems that do not want to slow down MPI by using
> agents and/or signals, it's nice to know they will be able to fully
> support the barrier style of programming (I think it's also the most
> prevalent style among the small subset of codes that require 1-sided).

Now *I'm* confused! Since implementations must support the locks anyway, how
does the presence of the barrier model simplifiy anything? Applications get to
choose which model they want to follow, yes, but implementations must still be
able to handle both. Or did I miss something?

I agree with Raja that in any case, we no longer need RMW and should therefore
eliminate it.

-- 
Eric Salo         Silicon Graphics Inc.             "Do you know what the
(415)933-2998     2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, 8U-808     last Xon said, just
salo@sgi.com      Mountain View, CA   94043-1389     before he died?"