lockfree VS tlaplus

If you're interested about lock-free data structures, I wrote [lockfree](https://github.com/DNedic/lockfree) a collection of lock-free data structures meant to be readable and both hosted system and embedded friendly.

If you want more than a spsc queue, I've written `lockfree`, a collection of SPSC and MPMC data structures along the same principles the author here used:https://github.com/DNedic/lockfree.

The library is written in standard C++11 (but additional API's for higher C++ versions have been added), uses no dynamic allocation and is configurable so it is both big metal and deeply embedded friendly.

- A lot of code won't work for types with no default constructors, but that is at least compile error

- Using memcpy[0] for arbitrary types is just wrong, see [1]

[0] https://github.com/DNedic/lockfree/blob/main/lockfree/inc/bi...

[1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p11...

My friend wrote a few lock-free data structures and he is now looking for some feedback. Here is the link: https://github.com/DNedic/lockfree

```

https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus/blob/master/tlatools/org....

In any case, our whole team thinks TLA is great, and we're happy people like you and Ron find it so useful and insightful. We also think it is a very insightful.

There are no tests! There are various ways to test concurrent data structures. You could use a stress test, where you spawn a lot of threads and let them mutate the map in a random way and then check the consistency of the map and some invariants. You could learn TLA+ and write a formal model of the map and then verify it.

Dafny and Whiley are two examples with explicit verification support. Idris and other dependently typed languages should all be rich enough to express the required predicate but might not necessarily be able to accept a reasonable implementation as proof. Isabelle, Lean, Coq, and other theorem provers definitely can express the capability but aren't going to churn out much in the way of executable programs; they're more useful to guide an implementation in a more practical functional language but then the proof is separated from the implementation, and you could also use tools like TLA+.

https://dafny.org/

https://whiley.org/

https://www.idris-lang.org/

https://isabelle.in.tum.de/

https://leanprover.github.io/

https://coq.inria.fr/

http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html

I wish something like Lamport's TLA+ (https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html) was supported in modern language compilers - perhaps with annotations/macros and a mini formal DSL.

Checking the invariant with assert is also useful in my limited experience with concurrency.

https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html

One advantage of formal methods is in determining "what was expected" (including all the goofy edge cases) without having to burrow into the details of code.

Take a look at Alloy (http://alloytools.org/) and TLA+ (https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html) for example. (Or even the ancient Z ("Zed") notation (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15819/zedbook.pdf)).

The pcal generator does *not* generate a definition for the set of labels. However, some users have suggested to add such a feature: https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus/issues/613