From f92474f04a6e57df48c91a4c9e38f31cff153f39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Brian Norris <banorris@uci.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:25:30 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] execution: remove redundant condition, reword doc for
promises_may_allow
promises_may_allow() doesn't actually need to check for
promises.empty(), as the loop bounds take care of that. In the same
spirit, we can reword the comments/documentation so that
(1) it is not redundant (condition (a) is subsumed by (b))
(2) we are more explicit about what we actually mean by "crossing
promises"
---
execution.cc | 13 ++++++-------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/execution.cc b/execution.cc
index e04b672..53aa521 100644
--- a/execution.cc
+++ b/execution.cc
@@ -755,12 +755,13 @@ bool ModelExecution::process_mutex(ModelAction *curr)
/**
* @brief Check if the current pending promises allow a future value to be sent
*
- * If one of the following is true:
- * (a) there are no pending promises
- * (b) the reader and writer do not cross any promises
- * Then, it is safe to pass a future value back now.
+ * It is unsafe to pass a future value back if there exists a pending promise Pr
+ * such that:
*
- * Otherwise, we must save the pending future value until (a) or (b) is true
+ * reader --exec-> Pr --exec-> writer
+ *
+ * If such Pr exists, we must save the pending future value until Pr is
+ * resolved.
*
* @param writer The operation which sends the future value. Must be a write.
* @param reader The operation which will observe the value. Must be a read.
@@ -769,8 +770,6 @@ bool ModelExecution::process_mutex(ModelAction *curr)
bool ModelExecution::promises_may_allow(const ModelAction *writer,
const ModelAction *reader) const
{
- if (promises.empty())
- return true;
for (int i = promises.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
ModelAction *pr = promises[i]->get_reader(0);
//reader is after promise...doesn't cross any promise
--
2.34.1