Shared-memory concurrency in C and C++ is pervasive in systems programming, but has long been poorly defined. This motivated an ongoing shared effort by the standards committees to specify concurrent behaviour in the next versions of both languages. They aim to provide strong guarantees for race-free programs, together with new (but subtle) relaxed-memory atomic primitives for highperformance concurrent code. However, the current draft standards, while the result of careful deliberation, are not yet clear and rigorous definitions, and harbour substantial problems in their details.In this paper we establish a mathematical (yet readable) semantics for C++ concurrency. We aim to capture the intent of the current ('Final Committee') Draft as closely as possible, but discuss changes that fix many of its problems. We prove that a proposed x86 implementation of the concurrency primitives is correct with respect to the x86-TSO model, and describe our CPPMEM tool for exploring the semantics of examples, using code generated from our Isabelle/HOL definitions.Having already motivated changes to the draft standard, this work will aid discussion of any further changes, provide a correctness condition for compilers, and give a much-needed basis for analysis and verification of concurrent C and C++ programs.

Abstract. Real multiprocessors do not provide the sequentially consistent memory that is assumed by most work on semantics and verification. Instead, they have relaxed memory models, typically described in ambiguous prose, which lead to widespread confusion. These are prime targets for mechanized formalization. In previous work we produced a rigorous x86-CC model, formalizing the Intel and AMD architecture specifications of the time, but those turned out to be unsound with respect to actual hardware, as well as arguably too weak to program above. We discuss these issues and present a new x86-TSO model that suffers from neither problem, formalized in HOL4. We believe it is sound with respect to real processors, reflects better the vendor's intentions, and is also better suited for programming. We give two equivalent definitions of x86-TSO: an intuitive operational model based on local write buffers, and an axiomatic total store ordering model, similar to that of the SPARCv8. Both are adapted to handle x86-specific features. We have implemented the axiomatic model in our memevents tool, which calculates the set of all valid executions of test programs, and, for greater confidence, verify the witnesses of such executions directly, with code extracted from a third, more algorithmic, equivalent version of the definition.

How close are we to a world where every paper on programming languages is accompanied by an electronic appendix with machinechecked proofs? We propose an initial set of benchmarks for measuring progress in this area. Based on the metatheory of System F , a typed lambda-calculus with second-order polymorphism, subtyping, and records, these benchmarks embody many aspects of programming languages that are challenging to formalize: variable binding at both the term and type levels, syntactic forms with variable numbers of components (including binders), and proofs demanding complex induction principles. We hope that these benchmarks will help clarify the current state of the art, provide a basis for comparing competing technologies, and motivate further research.

Shared-memory concurrency in C and C++ is pervasive in systems programming, but has long been poorly defined. This motivated an ongoing shared effort by the standards committees to specify concurrent behaviour in the next versions of both languages. They aim to provide strong guarantees for race-free programs, together with new (but subtle) relaxed-memory atomic primitives for highperformance concurrent code. However, the current draft standards, while the result of careful deliberation, are not yet clear and rigorous definitions, and harbour substantial problems in their details.In this paper we establish a mathematical (yet readable) semantics for C++ concurrency. We aim to capture the intent of the current ('Final Committee') Draft as closely as possible, but discuss changes that fix many of its problems. We prove that a proposed x86 implementation of the concurrency primitives is correct with respect to the x86-TSO model, and describe our CPPMEM tool for exploring the semantics of examples, using code generated from our Isabelle/HOL definitions.Having already motivated changes to the draft standard, this work will aid discussion of any further changes, provide a correctness condition for compilers, and give a much-needed basis for analysis and verification of concurrent C and C++ programs.

ARM has a relaxed memory model, previously specified in informal prose for ARMv7 and ARMv8. Over time, and partly due to work building formal semantics for ARM concurrency, it has become clear that some of the complexity of the model is not justified by the potential benefits. In particular, the model was originally nonmulticopy-atomic: writes could become visible to some other threads before becoming visible to all Ð but this has not been exploited in production implementations, the corresponding potential hardware optimisations are thought to have insufficient benefits in the ARM context, and it gives rise to subtle complications when combined with other ARMv8 features. The ARMv8 architecture has therefore been revised: it now has a multicopy-atomic model. It has also been simplified in other respects, including more straightforward notions of dependency, and the architecture now includes a formal concurrency model.In this paper we detail these changes and discuss their motivation. We define two formal concurrency models: an operational one, simplifying the Flowing model of Flur et al., and the axiomatic model of the revised ARMv8 specification. The models were developed by an academic group and by ARM staff, respectively, and this extended collaboration partly motivated the above changes. We prove the equivalence of the two models. The operational model is integrated into an executable exploration tool with new web interface, demonstrated by exhaustively checking the possible behaviours of a loop-unrolled version of a Linux kernel lock implementation, a previously known bug due to unprevented speculation, and a fixed version.