[NFC] Send the closed-world flag to TranslateToFuzzReader#7136
[NFC] Send the closed-world flag to TranslateToFuzzReader#7136kripken merged 2 commits intoWebAssembly:mainfrom
Conversation
tlively
left a comment
tlively
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we add the closedWorld bool along with the code that uses it?
|
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking? |
| // Whether the module will be tested in a closed-world environment. | ||
| bool closedWorld; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't actually used in this PR, so should we move it to a later PR that uses it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I put it here because it receives the info that is sent in the other half of the PR, so it shows both parts.
And the other half of the PR isn't "used" either, it has no effect 😄
But happy to do it either way, what do you prefer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But the new constructor parameter is never passed anywhere, so this is always false, right? Am I missing something that connects the new flag passed by fuzz_opt.py to the new constructor parameter that sets this member variable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, I was missing the line in wasm-opt.cpp to send it. I pulled it from the next PR to here now.
tlively
left a comment
tlively
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! This makes more sense now.
2 participants
This sends
--closed-worldtowasm-optfrom the fuzzer, when we use thatflag (before we just used it on optimizations, but not fuzz generation). And
TranslateToFuzzReader now stores a boolean about whether we are in closed-
world mode or not.
This has no effect so far, but will be needed in a later PR, where we must
generate code differently based on whether we are in closed-world mode
or not.