You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Nearly all web-based interfaces are written in JavaScript. Given its prevalence, the support for high performance JavaScript code is crucial. The ECMA Technical Committee 39 (TC39) has recently extended the ECMAScript language (i.e., JavaScript) to support shared memory accesses between different threads. The extension is given in terms of a natural language memory model specification. In this paper we describe a formal approach for validating both the memory model and its implementations in various JavaScript engines. We first introduce a formal version of the memory model and report results on checking the model for consistency and other properties. We then introduce our tool, EMME, built on top of the Alloy analyzer, which leverages the model to generate all possible valid executions of a given JavaScript program. Finally, we report results using EMME together with small test programs to analyze industrial JavaScript engines. We show that EMME can find bugs as well as missed opportunities for optimization.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: 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 high-performance 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.

[2]: Many ITP developments exist in the context of a single prover, and are dominated by proof effort. In contrast, when applying rigorous semantic techniques to realistic computer systems, engineering the definitions becomes a major activity in its own right. Proof is then only one task among many: testing, simulation, communication, community review, etc. Moreover, the effort invested in establishing such definitions should be re-usable and, where possible, irrespective of the local proof-assistant culture. For example, in recent work on processor and programming language concurrency (x86, Power, ARM, C++0x, CompCertTSO), we have used Coq, HOL4, Isabelle HOL, and Ott--often using multiple provers simultaneously, to exploit existing definitions or local expertise. In this paper we describe Lem, a prototype system specifically designed to support pragmatic engineering of such definitions. It has a carefully designed source language, of a familiar higher-order logic with datatype definitions, inductively defined relations, and so on. This is typechecked and translated to a variety of programming languages and proof assistants, preserving the original source structure (layout, comments, etc.) so that the result is readable and usable. We have already found this invaluable in our work on Power, ARM and C++0x concurrency.

[3]: The memory consistency model is a fundamental part of any shared memory architecture or programming model. Modern weak memory models are notoriously difficult to define and to implement correctly. Most real-world programming languages, compilers, and (micro)architectures therefore rely heavily on black-box testing methodologies. The success of such techniques requires that the suite of litmus tests used to perform the testing be comprehensive--it should ideally stress all obscure corner cases of the model and of its implementation. Most litmus test suites today are generated from some combination of manual effort and randomization; however, the complex and subtle nature of contemporary memory models means that manual effort is both error-prone and subject to incomplete coverage. This paper presents a methodology for synthesizing comprehensive litmus test suites directly from a memory model specification. By construction, these suites contain all tests satisfying a minimality criterion: that no synchronization mechanism in the test can be weakened without causing new behaviors to become observable. We formalize this notion using the Alloy modeling language, and we apply it to a number of existing and newly-proposed memory models. Our results show not only that this synthesis technique can automatically reproduce all manually-generated tests from existing suites, but also that it discovers new tests that are not as well studied.
An analysis of the C++ memory model is presented in [1] . The formalization is based on the LEM language [2] , and the CPPMem software provides all possible interpretations of a C C++ program consistent with the memory model. More recently, an approach based on Alloy and oriented towards synthesizing litmus tests is proposed in [3] .