09-186r1 To: J3 From: Van Snyder/ Bill Long Subject: SYNC problems, especially SYNC MEMORY Date: 2009 May 5 Reference: 09-007r1 1. Discussion Various wording changes that correct or clarify the text on segments and SYNC MEMORY are proposed. 2. Edits [130:12-13 6.7.1.2p3]------------------------------------------------------ Editor: Replace "each" by "every" twice. [189:17 8.5.1p1]-------------------------------------------------------- Editor: Delete "as". [189:18 8.5.1p2]-------------------------------------------------------- The first sentence is untrue, since SYNC MEMORY does not on its own affect the execution ordering between images. Other than SYNC MEMORY, it's not the statement but execution of it that affects execution order between images. The fact that they divide the execution sequence on each image into segments should be mentioned here instead of in 8.5.5. Editor: Replace the first sentence of p2 with "An image control statement divides the execution sequence on each image into segments (8.5.2)." [189:26 8.5.1p2]-------------------------------------------------------- An END or RETURN statement doesn't "involve" implicit deallocation. Execution of it does "cause" or "result in" implicit deallocation. Editor: Replace "that involves an" by "if execution of it results in". [189:27 8.5.1p2]-------------------------------------------------------- A statement that completes execution of a block doesn't result in implicit deallocation. Execution of it does result in implicit deallocation. Editor: Replace "and" by "if execution of it" [192:5-6 8.5.5p1]------------------------------------------------------- How can a segment be divided into two segments? SYNC MEMORY is already defined to be a segment boundary so the two segments are just sitting there anyway. It's just too weird to say "divides what would otherwise be a single segment into two segments." Editor: Replace "provides a means of dividing a segment on an image into two segments" with "defines the boundary between two segments on an image". [193:13 8.5.5p4]-------------------------------------------------------- Yes, "must" is the correct word here, since it is an unavoidable consequence of a requirement, not a requirement. Editor: Replace "shall" with "must".