link to OOPSLA paper on inline-asm

diff --git a/personal/_posts/2026-03-13-inline-asm.md b/personal/_posts/2026-03-13-inline-asm.md
index f577a1d68decbcb92d9081ba1214a1816e756cac..09ffd36a53e6698a8c4a8465fba4ce176ac7c86f 100644 (file)
--- a/personal/_posts/2026-03-13-inline-asm.md
+++ b/personal/_posts/2026-03-13-inline-asm.md
@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ Therefore, one can write a Rust program that seems to be data-race-free (accordi
 In other words, rule 3 (the inline asm block must refine the story code) is violated.
 
 The principled fix for this is to extend the C++ memory model (which is shared by Rust) with a notion of non-temporal stores so that one can reason about how they interact with everything else that can go on in a concurrent program.
 In other words, rule 3 (the inline asm block must refine the story code) is violated.
 
 The principled fix for this is to extend the C++ memory model (which is shared by Rust) with a notion of non-temporal stores so that one can reason about how they interact with everything else that can go on in a concurrent program.

-I am not aware of anyone having actually done this---extending or even just slightly adjusting the C++ memory model is an [enormous undertaking](https://plv.mpi-sws.org/scfix/paper.pdf).
+This is [possible](https://people.mpi-sws.org/~viktor/papers/oopsla2024-inline.pdf), but it requires re-proving compiler correctness results, and at least the approach taken in that paper is architecture-specific which does not scale to the large number of architectures Rust supports.

 However, there is a simpler alternative: we can try coming up with a more complicated story such that rule 3 is not violated.
 This is exactly what a bunch of folks did when the issue around non-temporal stores was discovered.
 The story says that doing a non-temporal store corresponds to *spawning a thread* that will asynchronously perform the actual store,
 However, there is a simpler alternative: we can try coming up with a more complicated story such that rule 3 is not violated.
 This is exactly what a bunch of folks did when the issue around non-temporal stores was discovered.
 The story says that doing a non-temporal store corresponds to *spawning a thread* that will asynchronously perform the actual store,