address some todos

papers/icfp2021/queue-impl.tex

@@ -189,15 +189,13 @@ not changed since we read it: the slot is still available.
 We write the new item, then we update the status accordingly. This update must
 come last, as it serves as a signal that the slot is now occupied with an item
 and ready for dequeuers.
-
-%Notice that, under weak memory, the order of these two writes matters: the
+%
+%Notice that, under weak memory, another reason why the order of these two writes matters is that the
 %atomic write to \refstatuses must propagate the information that the nonatomic
 %write to \refelements has taken place. Thus, a thread which dequeues this item
 %(after reading its status) is certain to read a correct value from the array
 %\refelements. This is a typical release/acquire idiom.
 
-% TODO : JH : Ok, mais c'est aussi nécessaire dasn un modèle SC, puisque l'écriture du statut correspond au relacheemnt du lock : si on s'amusait à remplir la cellule après écrire dasn statut, alors le dequeuer pourrait commencer à lire le contenu de la cellule avant que celle-ci ait été remplie, non ? Pour moi, c'est une meilleure justification pour l'odre des opérations. Les questions de mémoire faible sont plus subtiles et nécessitent d'avoir compris un peu la spec.
-
 Similarly, \dequeue repeatedly calls \trydequeue untils it succeeds;
 the latter works analogously to \tryenqueue,%
 %

papers/icfp2021/queue-spec-sc.tex

@@ -178,11 +178,9 @@ Indeed, one would simply define $\isQueuePers\Phi$ as the conjuction of $\queueI
 \[
   \knowInv{}{\Exists \nbelems, \elemList*[]. \isQueueSC\elemList \isep \Phi\,\nthElem{0} \isep \cdots \isep \Phi\,\nthElem{\nbelems-1}}
 \]
-This is trivial to produce at the creation of the queue, when \make hands us the assertions $\queueInv$ and $\isQueueSC{[]}$
-% TODO: ça laisse penser qu’il faut ajouter la spec de make en SC (et en
-% séquentiel, pour la symétrie).
+This is trivial to produce at the creation of the queue, when \make hands us the assertions $\queueInv$ and $\isQueueSC{[]}$.
 Then, for proving the weaker specification of $\enqueue$ and $\dequeue$, one would open the invariant around the associated logically atomic triples.
-% TODO : faut-il en dire plus, ou est-ce compréhensible tel quel?
+% JH: faut-il en dire plus, ou est-ce compréhensible tel quel?
 % GLEN: ça me semble suffisant (j’ai ajouté qu’il faut garder l’invariant
 % interne, \queueInv, à côté).
 

papers/icfp2021/queue-spec-seq.tex

@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ is represented in separation logic with a assertion:
 In a sequential setting, we can give a simple specification to the operations of
 the queue, as presented in~\fref{fig:queue:specseq}. We use the standard Hoare
 triple notation, with a partial correctness meaning.
+% TODO: ref for Hoare triples?
 %
 If we own a queue~$\queue$, then we can $\enqueue$ some item~$\elem$
 into~$\queue$; if this operation ever returns, then it must return the unit value~$\Unit$ and