I didn’t know that… :-o If DO CONCURRENT works directly with GPU, I definitely would like to try (if it is easier to use than CUDA itself…
)
Unless the problematic cases can be addressed without breaking upward compatibility, I think it would be better to propose a replacement feature, e.g.,
do parallel, with syntax as close todo concurrentas possible so that existing codes can migrate to the new feature easily
From a user’s side, it is no problem which keyword or syntax is used for the parallel execution (e.g. FORALL, DO CONCURRENT, DO PAPARALLEL). But my concern is why those keywords have some problems and even FORALL deprecated(?) (though I feel it very convenient)… I guess it might be some limitation of a “specification first” approach (i.e. no implementation before the final/formal specification)