Re: [PATCHv2 0/4] tools/memory-model: Define more of LKMM in tools/memory-model

[Jonas Oberhauser]

Am 7/29/2024 um 5:53 PM schrieb Hernan Ponce de Leon:
> On 7/29/2024 5:44 PM, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > I don't think this is a problem. If the old version is the default, 
> > and we define it in the .cfg file for the tree version of LKMM, then 
> > it will work correctly for both the old and new versions. People 
> > playing around with Memory Models should be careful enough not to 
> > intentionally break the model by passing bogus options.
>
> The same was true for my implementation using the lkmm-legacy option

Yeah, I'm fine with that one. (Although it may be better to have a 
version number as value instead of just a boolean flag, like 
-model-version=x_y_z - just in case this is not the last time).

> rather than the model variant, but this was still considered to break 
> backward compatibility.
>
> https://github.com/herd/herdtools7/pull/865#issuecomment-2229930493

I think Akira is a bit overzealous here. What if a user accidentally 
puts -lkmm-legacy false and accidentally also adds the version number 
into the litmus test and/or model?

The request can be fulfilled, by defining some relation in the bell file 
that has a magic name like version_x_y_z and checks that the x_y_z 
matches the -model-version=x_y_z provided as an argument.

But I don't think we need to go that far.

jonas