tools/memory-model: Remove redundant initialization in litmus tests

This is a revert of commit 1947bfc ("tools/memory-model: Add types
to litmus tests") with conflict resolutions.

klitmus7 [1] is aware of default types of "int" and "int*".
It accepts litmus tests for herd7 without extra type info unless
non-"int" variables are referenced by an "exists", "locations",
or "filter" directive.

[1]: Tested with klitmus7 versions 7.49 or later.

Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/CoRR+poonceonce+Once.litmus

@@ -7,9 +7,7 @@ C CoRR+poonceonce+Once
  * reads from the same variable are ordered.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/CoRW+poonceonce+Once.litmus

@@ -7,9 +7,7 @@ C CoRW+poonceonce+Once
  * a given variable and a later write to that same variable are ordered.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/CoWR+poonceonce+Once.litmus

@@ -7,9 +7,7 @@ C CoWR+poonceonce+Once
  * given variable and a later read from that same variable are ordered.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/CoWW+poonceonce.litmus

@@ -7,9 +7,7 @@ C CoWW+poonceonce
  * writes to the same variable are ordered.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus

@@ -10,10 +10,7 @@ C IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce
  * process?  This litmus test exercises LKMM's "propagation" rule.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus

@@ -10,10 +10,7 @@ C IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce
  * different process?
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus

@@ -7,12 +7,7 @@ C ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce
  * (in P0() and P1()) is visible to external process P2().
  *)
 
-{
-	spinlock_t mylock;
-	int x;
-	int y;
-	int z;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ISA2+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -9,11 +9,7 @@ C ISA2+poonceonces
  * of the smp_load_acquire() invocations are replaced by READ_ONCE()?
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-	int z;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ISA2+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+poacquireonce.litmus

@@ -11,11 +11,7 @@ C ISA2+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+poacquireonce
  * (AKA non-rf) link, so release-acquire is all that is needed.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-	int z;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus

@@ -11,10 +11,7 @@ C LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce
  * another control dependency and order would still be maintained.)
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+poacquireonce+pooncerelease.litmus

@@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ C LB+poacquireonce+pooncerelease
  * to the other?
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -7,10 +7,7 @@ C LB+poonceonces
  * be prevented even with no explicit ordering?
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus

@@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ C MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce
  * is usually better to use smp_store_release() and smp_load_acquire().
  *)
 
-{
-	int buf;
-	int flag;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *buf, int *flag) // Producer
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus

@@ -10,9 +10,7 @@ C MP+onceassign+derefonce
  *)
 
 {
-	int *p=y;
-	int x;
-	int y=0;
+p=y;
 }
 
 P0(int *x, int **p) // Producer

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus

@@ -10,10 +10,7 @@ C MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil
  * executed before the lock was acquired (loosely speaking).
  *)
 
-{
-	spinlock_t lo;
-	int x;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(spinlock_t *lo, int *x) // Producer
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus

@@ -10,10 +10,7 @@ C MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil
  * speaking).
  *)
 
-{
-	spinlock_t lo;
-	int x;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(spinlock_t *lo, int *x) // Producer
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polocks.litmus

@@ -11,11 +11,7 @@ C MP+polocks
  * to see all prior accesses by those other CPUs.
  *)
 
-{
-	spinlock_t mylock;
-	int buf;
-	int flag;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *buf, int *flag, spinlock_t *mylock) // Producer
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -7,10 +7,7 @@ C MP+poonceonces
  * no ordering at all?
  *)
 
-{
-	int buf;
-	int flag;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *buf, int *flag) // Producer
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce.litmus

@@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ C MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce
  * pattern.
  *)
 
-{
-	int buf;
-	int flag;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *buf, int *flag) // Producer
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+porevlocks.litmus

@@ -11,11 +11,7 @@ C MP+porevlocks
  * see all prior accesses by those other CPUs.
  *)
 
-{
-	spinlock_t mylock;
-	int buf;
-	int flag;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *buf, int *flag, spinlock_t *mylock) // Consumer
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+fencembonceonces.litmus

@@ -9,10 +9,7 @@ C R+fencembonceonces
  * cause the resulting test to be allowed.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ C R+poonceonces
  * store propagation delays.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus

@@ -7,10 +7,7 @@ C S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce
  * store against a subsequent store?
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -9,10 +9,7 @@ C S+poonceonces
  * READ_ONCE(), is ordering preserved?
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus

@@ -9,10 +9,7 @@ C SB+fencembonceonces
  * suffice, but not much else.)
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ C SB+poonceonces
  * variable that the preceding process reads.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces.litmus

@@ -6,10 +6,7 @@ C SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces
  * This litmus test demonstrates that LKMM is not fully multicopy atomic.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+poonceonces+Once.litmus

@@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ C WRC+poonceonces+Once
  * test has no ordering at all.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus

@@ -10,10 +10,7 @@ C WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once
  * is A-cumulative in LKMM.
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce.litmus

@@ -9,12 +9,7 @@ C Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce
  * by CPUs not holding that lock.
  *)
 
-{
-	spinlock_t mylock;
-	int x;
-	int y;
-	int z;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus

@@ -8,12 +8,7 @@ C Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce
  * seen as ordered by a third process not holding that lock.
  *)
 
-{
-	spinlock_t mylock;
-	int x;
-	int y;
-	int z;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
 {

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus

@@ -14,11 +14,7 @@ C Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce
  * involving locking.)
  *)
 
-{
-	int x;
-	int y;
-	int z;
-}
+{}
 
 P0(int *x, int *y)
 {