From ed31d01909a0811683a7666abdec274b6c929c10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ralf Jung Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:43:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] more consistent update notes --- ralf/_posts/2017-05-23-internship-starting.md | 3 ++- ralf/_posts/2017-07-08-rustbelt.md | 4 ++-- ralf/_posts/2017-08-11-types-as-contracts-evaluation.md | 2 +- 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/ralf/_posts/2017-05-23-internship-starting.md b/ralf/_posts/2017-05-23-internship-starting.md index c8a7252..c828316 100644 --- a/ralf/_posts/2017-05-23-internship-starting.md +++ b/ralf/_posts/2017-05-23-internship-starting.md @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ That's it for now. I don't have the answers to these questions, but hopefully my work will help getting closer to an answer. I will keep you posted on my progress (or lack thereof), probably on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. -**Update.** I realized I should probably expand on the parenthetical remark about specifying MIR rather than specifying Rust. +**Update:** I realized I should probably expand on the parenthetical remark about specifying MIR rather than specifying Rust. What we are planning to do here is to specify Rust by specifying (a) how Rust code translates to MIR, and (b) specifying MIR. This has two advantages. First of all, part (a) actually is already done and implemented in the Rust compiler! @@ -51,3 +51,4 @@ Now, this is *not* to say that every Rust compiler has to use MIR in its compila It just means that the way I imagine a specification of Rust to look like is as consisting of two parts: The Rust-to-MIR translation, and a specification for MIR. If another compiler uses a different implementation strategy, it can still be compliant with the specification; it just has to ensure that Rust programs behave as specified. This is a common approach that can also be found, e.g., in the specification of CPU instruction sets: The specification describes the behavior of a complex instruction as a series of commands in some lower-level language. The CPU does not actually use that language as part of its implementation, but *it behaves as if it would*, and that's the only part that matters. +**/Update** diff --git a/ralf/_posts/2017-07-08-rustbelt.md b/ralf/_posts/2017-07-08-rustbelt.md index 0773db6..1dfee5b 100644 --- a/ralf/_posts/2017-07-08-rustbelt.md +++ b/ralf/_posts/2017-07-08-rustbelt.md @@ -38,6 +38,6 @@ All these results were only possible because of my great collaborators, [Jacques I also benefited a lot from countless discussions with the Rust community at large, and with Aaron and Niko in particular. You guys rock! -**Update**: I have changed the link to point to the [final version of the paper](https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/popl18/). +**Update:** I have changed the link to point to the [final version of the paper](https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/popl18/). **/Update** -**Update**: The conference talk is now available [on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy9NUVaiYUg). +**Update:** The conference talk is now available [on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy9NUVaiYUg). **/Update** diff --git a/ralf/_posts/2017-08-11-types-as-contracts-evaluation.md b/ralf/_posts/2017-08-11-types-as-contracts-evaluation.md index edb2a45..e3ccfd1 100644 --- a/ralf/_posts/2017-08-11-types-as-contracts-evaluation.md +++ b/ralf/_posts/2017-08-11-types-as-contracts-evaluation.md @@ -268,4 +268,4 @@ Still, I certainly intend to stay involved. This problem is way too interesting As always, please [comment](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/https-www-ralfj-de-blog-2017-08-11-types-as-contracts-evaluation-html/5753) with your thoughts on the topic. I am particularly curious about what kind of test cases you are throwing at miri, and how it is doing! -**Update**: I added a proposal for how to fix the `Arc` problem. +**Update:** I added a proposal for how to fix the `Arc` problem. **/Update** -- 2.30.2