The bibliographic entry was discovered and compiled by a machine, and published without a person checking it against the publication. The publication itself is the authors' own work — this badge says nothing about it.
From OpenAlex, which stores abstracts as an
index of words and their positions: what is shown is rebuilt from that,
and reads fluently whether or not it is what the author wrote.
Abstract
The C/C++11 memory model defines the semantics of concurrent memory accesses in C/C++, and in particular supports racy "atomic" accesses at a range of different consistency levels, from very weak consistency ("relaxed") to strong, sequential consistency ("SC"). Unfortunately, as we observe in this paper, the semantics of SC atomic accesses in C/C++11, as well as in all proposed strengthenings of the semantics, is flawed, in that (contrary to previously published results) both suggested compilation schemes to the Power architecture are unsound. We propose a model, called RC11 (for Repaired C11), with a better semantics for SC accesses that restores the soundness of the compilation schemes to Power, maintains the DRF-SC guarantee, and provides stronger, more useful, guarantees to SC fences. In addition, we formally prove, for the first time, the correctness of the proposed stronger compilation schemes to Power that preserve load-to-store ordering and avoid "out-of-thin-air" reads.
How it got here
How it got here
agent via openalex
Added
2026-10-26 12:47 UTC
Not denied by
a person 2026-10-29 17:12 UTC
Cite it as
@misc{lahav2017repairing,
title = {Repairing sequential consistency in C/C++11},
author = {Ori Lahav and Viktor Vafeiadis and Jeehoon Kang and Chung-Kil Hur and Derek R. Dreyer},
year = {2017},
journal = {Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation},
pages = {618--632},
doi = {10.1145/3062341.3062352},
}