Skip to contentSkip to conversation

advsync: Move footnote to avoid confusion

PATCH In review Akira Yokosawa 2 participants 2 messages Jun 30, 2017

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 advsync: Move footnote to avoid confusion

From b1ef8b3ee5697202ae96fc8c7ebd85633aa0a703 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Akira Yokosawa <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:23:07 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] advsync: Move footnote to avoid confusion

This footnote marker placed just after number "0" looks like as if it were math mode $0^1$. Move the marker backward to avoid confusion.

---
 advsync/memorybarriers.tex | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
advsync/memorybarriers.tex +2 -2
index 03ad184..a2e4a20 100644
@@ -50,12 +50,12 @@ code that fails to use standard mechanisms.
 For example, the trivial-seeming litmus test in
 Figure~\ref{fig:advsync:Memory Misordering: Store-Buffering Litmus Test}
 appears to guarantee that the \co{exists} clause is never satisfied.
-After all, if \nbco{0:r2=0}\footnote{
+After all, if \nbco{0:r2=0} as shown in the \co{exists} clause,\footnote{
 	That is, Thread~\co{P0()}'s instance of local variable \co{r2}
 	equals zero.
 	See Section~\ref{sec:formal:Anatomy of a Litmus Test}
 	for documention of litmus-test nomenclature.}
-as shown in the \co{exists} clause, we might hope that Thread~\co{P0()}'s
+we might hope that Thread~\co{P0()}'s
 load from~\co{x1} must have happened before Thread~\co{P1()}'s store to~\co{x1},
 which might raise
 further hopes that Thread~\co{P1()}'s load from~\co{x0} must happen after
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4
#1 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · Akira Yokosawa
Quoted 1 line

From b1ef8b3ee5697202ae96fc8c7ebd85633aa0a703 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: Akira Yokosawa <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:23:07 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] advsync: Move footnote to avoid confusion

This footnote marker placed just after number "0" looks like as if it were math mode $0^1$. Move the marker backward to avoid confusion.

Good eyes, queued and pushed!

I am so used to seeing things like 0:r2=0 as separate entities that the possibility of superscript confusion didn't even occur to me. ;-)

Thanx, Paul

Quoted 26 lines
---
 advsync/memorybarriers.tex | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
advsync/memorybarriers.tex +2 -2
index 03ad184..a2e4a20 100644
@@ -50,12 +50,12 @@ code that fails to use standard mechanisms.
 For example, the trivial-seeming litmus test in
 Figure~\ref{fig:advsync:Memory Misordering: Store-Buffering Litmus Test}
 appears to guarantee that the \co{exists} clause is never satisfied.
-After all, if \nbco{0:r2=0}\footnote{
+After all, if \nbco{0:r2=0} as shown in the \co{exists} clause,\footnote{
 	That is, Thread~\co{P0()}'s instance of local variable \co{r2}
 	equals zero.
 	See Section~\ref{sec:formal:Anatomy of a Litmus Test}
 	for documention of litmus-test nomenclature.}
-as shown in the \co{exists} clause, we might hope that Thread~\co{P0()}'s
+we might hope that Thread~\co{P0()}'s
 load from~\co{x1} must have happened before Thread~\co{P1()}'s store to~\co{x1},
 which might raise
 further hopes that Thread~\co{P1()}'s load from~\co{x0} must happen after
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4