Misc

papers/icfp2021/figure-queue-spec-weak.tex

@@ -102,4 +102,3 @@
 % JH : TODO : serait-ce pertinent de mentionner ici la timelessness et l'objectivité de isQueue et la persistence de queueInv? Cela fait partie de la spec, à mon sens.
 % GLEN: la persistance oui, la timelessness c’est peut-être trop technique ?
 
-% TODO: a-t-on dit quelque part que tous ces triplets atomiques ont implicitement \queueInv en hypothèse ?

papers/icfp2021/local.bib

@@ -122,3 +122,10 @@
   year={2015},
   publisher={ACM}
 }
+
+@misc{gueneau2021theorems,
+  title={Theorems for Free from Separation Logic Specifications},
+  author={Anonymous},
+  year={2021},
+  note={Under submission at ICFP'21}
+}
\ No newline at end of file

papers/icfp2021/queue-proof.tex

@@ -572,7 +572,8 @@ deduced from the two previous by an obvious induction; and the proof of \make is
 simply a matter of initializing the ghost state.
 %
 Being absolutely formal is not a goal of this text. The interested reader may
-find these proofs, conducted in the Coq proof assistant, in~\cite{TODO}.
+find these proofs, conducted in the Coq proof assistant, in the appendix of the present submission.
+% TODO : la dernière phrase poru la version finale
 
 Recalling here the specification in~\fref{fig:queue:spec:weak}, and unfolding
 the definition of $\queueInv$, we ought to prove the following assertion:

papers/icfp2021/queue-spec-sc.tex

@@ -60,7 +60,6 @@ When using this concept, instead of using ordinary Hoare triples, we use \emph{l
 This kind of triples are like Hoare triples: they specify a program fragment, have a precondition and a postcondition.
 The core difference is that they allow opening invariants around the triple: in a sense, when a function is specified using logically atomic triples, one states that said function behaves just like if it were atomic.
 The definition of logically atomic triples is further discussed in~\sref{sec:queue:proof:la}
-% TODO : référencer la section
 and given with detail in previous work~\cite[\S7]{jung-slides-2019,iris-15}.
 In order to get a good intuition, let us consider an approximated definition of that concept: a logically atomic triple $\lahoare{P}{e}{Q}$ states, roughly, that the expression $e$ contains a linearization point which has $P$ as a precondition and $Q$ as a postcondition.
 This linearization point being atomic, it allows the opening of invariants just like atomic instructions.

papers/icfp2021/queue-spec-weak.tex

@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ Hence, we give fewer guarantees than a sequential queue guarded by a lock.
 %    sinon ça reste vague, je trouve
 
 Interestingly, \hlog{} is able to express this subtle difference between the behavior of our library and that of lock-based implementation: the full specification under weak memory is shown in~\fref{fig:queue:spec:weak}.
-It extends the previous specification (\fref{fig:queue:spec:sc}) with views, capturing the mentioned happens-before relationships as follows.
+It extends the previous specification (\fref{fig:queue:spec:sc}) with views: to simplify notation, we left the premise $\queueInv$ implicit for all logically atomic specifications. The mentioned happens-before relationships are captured as follows.
 
 \begin{enumerate}%
 

papers/icfp2021/related.tex

@@ -5,8 +5,10 @@ The verification of fine-grained concurrent data structures is a well-studied pr
 Several approaches were tried, targeting various verification frameworks, various data structures in different contexts.
 
 The  notion of \emph{linearizability} is central for specifying such libraries.
-
-
+\citet{dongol2015verifying} gave a survey of the different techniques used for linearizability of concurrent libraries at that time.
+%TODO : corriger l'netrée biblio de l'article d'Armaël
+Of particular interest in the context of separation logic is the technique of \emph{logical tomicity}, which has been recently proved to be equivalent to linearizability~\cite{gueneau2021theorems}.
+This concept has been developped through several iterations