@@ -233,9 +233,9 @@ After `self.buffer` is initialized, it is modified only by the owner in `fn resi
233
233
the contents inside a buffer is always accessed modulo the buffer's capacity (` 'L109 ` , ` 'L211 ` ,
234
234
` 'L409 ` ) and the buffer's size is always nonzero, there are no buffer overruns.
235
235
236
- Thus it remains to prove that the buffer is not used after freed. Thanks to Crossbeam, we don't need
237
- to take care of all the details of memory reclamation; [ this RFC] [ rfc-relaxed-memory ] says that as a
238
- user of Crossbeam, we only need to prove that:
236
+ Thus it remains to prove that the buffer is not used after it has been freed. Thanks to Crossbeam,
237
+ we don't need to take care of all the details of memory reclamation; [ this RFC] [ rfc-relaxed-memory ]
238
+ says that as a user of Crossbeam, we only need to prove that:
239
239
240
240
- When a buffer is deferred to be dropped (` 'L308 ` ), there are no longer references to the buffer in
241
241
the shared memory, and no concurrent mutators introduce a reference to the buffer in the memory
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ follows:
361
361
We will insert the invocations in ` G_i ` between ` O_i ` and ` O_(i+1) ` . Inside a group ` G_i ` , we give
362
362
the linearization order as follows:
363
363
364
- - Let ` STEAL^x ` be the set of steal invocations tat stole an element at the index ` x ` , and
364
+ - Let ` STEAL^x ` be the set of steal invocations that stole an element at the index ` x ` , and
365
365
` STEAL_EMPTY ` be the set of steal invocations that returns ` EMPTY ` . Let ` STEAL ` be `Union_x
366
366
{STEAL^x}`.
367
367
@@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ Suppose that `O_i` is `pop()` taking the irregular path, and `x` be the value `O
394
394
succeeds or fails, ` O_i ` reads or writes ` top >= x ` .
395
395
396
396
It is worth nothing that for this lemma to hold, it is necessary for the CAS at ` 'L213 ` to be
397
- strong, i.e. it the CAS does not spuriously fail.
397
+ strong, i.e. the CAS does not spuriously fail.
398
398
399
399
- > (IRREGULAR-STEAL): Let ` S ` be a successful ` steal() ` that reads from ` bottom ` a value written by
400
400
` O_i ` and returns a value, and ` y ` be the value ` S ` writes to ` top ` at ` 'L410 ` . Then ` y < x `
@@ -962,7 +962,7 @@ stronger than the success argument." ([C11][c11] 7.17.7.4 paragraph 2). So inste
962
962
the companion implementation. This C11 requirement may be fail-safe for most use cases, but can
963
963
actually be slightly inefficient in this case.
964
964
965
- It is worth nothing that the CAS at ` 'L213 ` should be strong. Otherwise, a similar execution to the
965
+ It is worth noting that the CAS at ` 'L213 ` should be strong. Otherwise, a similar execution to the
966
966
one above is possible, where the CAS at ` 'L213 ` reads ` top = 0 ` and then spuriously fails.
967
967
968
968
0 commit comments