[PATCH] advsync: Move footnote to avoid confusion

[PATCH] advsync: Move footnote to avoid confusion

[Akira Yokosawa]

From b1ef8b3ee5697202ae96fc8c7ebd85633aa0a703 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
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.

Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
---
 advsync/memorybarriers.tex | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/advsync/memorybarriers.tex b/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
index 03ad184..a2e4a20 100644
--- a/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
+++ b/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
@@ -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
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] advsync: Move footnote to avoid confusion

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 06:48:14AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >From b1ef8b3ee5697202ae96fc8c7ebd85633aa0a703 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
> 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.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>

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

> ---
>  advsync/memorybarriers.tex | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/advsync/memorybarriers.tex b/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
> index 03ad184..a2e4a20 100644
> --- a/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
> +++ b/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
> @@ -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
> -- 
> 2.7.4
>