> I am not suggesting to remove all comments. Some human readable > explanation is important as long as the code is developed by humans. > > I think that I'll have to accept also the extra comments if you are > really going to use them to check the consistency by a tool. Or > if they are really used for review by some people.
Glad to hear this. Thank you, Petr. > Do all this manuals, tools, people use any common syntax, please? > Would it be usable in our case as well? > > I would like to avoid reinventing the wheel. Also I do not want > to create a dialect for few people that other potentially interested > parties will not understand. Right; I think that terms such as "(barrier) matching", "reads-from" and "overwrites" are commonly used to refer to litmus tests. (The various primitives/instructions are of course specific to the given context: the language, the memory model, etc. ) IOW, I'd say that that wheel _and a common denominator here can be represented by the notion of "litmus test". I'm not suggesting to reinvent this wheel of course; my point was more along the lines of "let's use the wheel, it'll be helpful..." ;-) Andrea