On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 07:11:02AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On 2019/02/12 08:16:31 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:39:38AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >> >From 0ddf5c5ea4a66a0d6bff1b6c0ce32682459c20ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:18:29 +0900
> >> Subject: [PATCH 4/4] memorder: Remove 'snippet' meta command in stray litmus test
> >>
> >> C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus is identical to
> >> C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o.litmus and causes "make" to emit
> >> warning:
> >>
> >> target 'CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o@xxxxxxxxx'
> >> given more than once in the same rule
> >>
> >> This commit removes "snippet" meta commands in the test.
> >> Just removing the file can cause a build error afterward.
> >> A "make clean" will resolve the error, but keeping the file
> >> looks like a reasonable approach to avoid surprising people.
> >> The file can be removed in the near future when most active
> >> users have updated snippets.d.
> >
> > Unless I am confused, this litmus test appears as Listing 15.37.
>
> Listing 15.37 is "C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o".
> The file I modified is "C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus" (note the
> missing "-o-" in the final part") but contains the same test
> "C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o". There exists
> C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o.litmus which contains the same test
> "C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o". So C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus
> can be safely removed. But this patch removes the snippet meta-commands
> instead.
>
> Have I made the point clearer?
You have! My confusion stemmed from the fact that these two files
are identical, as you say:
CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus
CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o.litmus
I was searching based on the name within the file rather than the
filename. In short, we can just get rid of the unused file.
Apologies for my confusion!
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks, Akira
>
> > That said, its discussion does not reference any line numbers, so
> > the snippet comments could reasonably be removed. Or maybe I should
> > instead upgrade the discussion to include line numbers.
> >
> > So what am I missing here?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus | 2 --
> >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus b/CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus
> >> index a39baf3..2407a51 100644
> >> --- a/CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus
> >> +++ b/CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-rul-o.litmus
> >> @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
> >> C C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o
> >> -//\begin[snippet][labelbase=ln:formal:C-SB+o-rcusync-o+rl-o-rul-o:whole,commandchars=\@\[\]]
> >> {
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -19,5 +18,4 @@ P1(uintptr_t *x0, uintptr_t *x1)
> >> uintptr_t r2 = READ_ONCE(*x0);
> >> }
> >>
> >> -//\end[snippet]
> >> exists (1:r2=0 /\ 0:r2=0)
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
> >>
> >
>
