This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 3, 2021. It is now read-only.
Is it a validation error to use memory.* if there is no memory? #79
Comments
|
Yes, see https://github.com/WebAssembly/bulk-memory-operations/blob/master/document/core/valid/instructions.rst#memoryfill. It's not required for |
On purpose or oversight? Firefox will refuse to validate if data.drop is used without a memory, or elem.drop is used without a table; I can argue it both ways and I'm curious what people think. |
|
That makes sense to me. Conceptually, all memory ops reference memory index 0, but in the future may allow others, making the index explicit; (That is, the check is really just an ordinary index check, except that we only support index 0 at the moment.) |
|
Thanks, all! |
moz-v2v-gh
pushed a commit
to mozilla/gecko-dev
that referenced
this issue
Apr 28, 2019
…=lhansen. Our Wasm implementations current reject data.drop and elem.drop if there is no memory or table in the module. This isn't consistent with the current bulk-memory specification, though. See WebAssembly/bulk-memory-operations#79. This patch fixes that by slightly loosening the relevant checks, so as to allow a segment to be dropped even if there is no memory, providing that that segment is a passive one. Most of the changes are in the test file passive-segs-nonboundary.js: * There are four new checks for data.drop without memory and the equivalents for table.drop. * Test construction function `do_test` has been made more flexible, so it is now possible to independently specify whether a table/memory is present, whether active initialisers are present, and whether passive initialisers are present. In WasmModule.cpp, a couple of places where a segment vector was asserted to be empty have been changed to assert that it contains only passive segments. Attempts to do this using std::all_of and a closure were unsuccessful (see bug 1547031) and instead a debug-only helper function `AllSegmentsArePassive` was added. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D28951 --HG-- extra : rebase_source : 2f85bf4fb32a424098ba24670790adee917f882f
mykmelez
pushed a commit
to mykmelez/gecko
that referenced
this issue
Apr 29, 2019
…=lhansen. Our Wasm implementations current reject data.drop and elem.drop if there is no memory or table in the module. This isn't consistent with the current bulk-memory specification, though. See WebAssembly/bulk-memory-operations#79. This patch fixes that by slightly loosening the relevant checks, so as to allow a segment to be dropped even if there is no memory, providing that that segment is a passive one. Most of the changes are in the test file passive-segs-nonboundary.js: * There are four new checks for data.drop without memory and the equivalents for table.drop. * Test construction function `do_test` has been made more flexible, so it is now possible to independently specify whether a table/memory is present, whether active initialisers are present, and whether passive initialisers are present. In WasmModule.cpp, a couple of places where a segment vector was asserted to be empty have been changed to assert that it contains only passive segments. Attempts to do this using std::all_of and a closure were unsuccessful (see bug 1547031) and instead a debug-only helper function `AllSegmentsArePassive` was added. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D28951
gecko-dev-updater
pushed a commit
to marco-c/gecko-dev-comments-removed
that referenced
this issue
Oct 4, 2019
…=lhansen. Our Wasm implementations current reject data.drop and elem.drop if there is no memory or table in the module. This isn't consistent with the current bulk-memory specification, though. See WebAssembly/bulk-memory-operations#79. This patch fixes that by slightly loosening the relevant checks, so as to allow a segment to be dropped even if there is no memory, providing that that segment is a passive one. Most of the changes are in the test file passive-segs-nonboundary.js: * There are four new checks for data.drop without memory and the equivalents for table.drop. * Test construction function `do_test` has been made more flexible, so it is now possible to independently specify whether a table/memory is present, whether active initialisers are present, and whether passive initialisers are present. In WasmModule.cpp, a couple of places where a segment vector was asserted to be empty have been changed to assert that it contains only passive segments. Attempts to do this using std::all_of and a closure were unsuccessful (see bug 1547031) and instead a debug-only helper function `AllSegmentsArePassive` was added. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D28951 UltraBlame original commit: e81669455530c9d127aafd89c1fdce308b183a68
gecko-dev-updater
pushed a commit
to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified
that referenced
this issue
Oct 4, 2019
…=lhansen. Our Wasm implementations current reject data.drop and elem.drop if there is no memory or table in the module. This isn't consistent with the current bulk-memory specification, though. See WebAssembly/bulk-memory-operations#79. This patch fixes that by slightly loosening the relevant checks, so as to allow a segment to be dropped even if there is no memory, providing that that segment is a passive one. Most of the changes are in the test file passive-segs-nonboundary.js: * There are four new checks for data.drop without memory and the equivalents for table.drop. * Test construction function `do_test` has been made more flexible, so it is now possible to independently specify whether a table/memory is present, whether active initialisers are present, and whether passive initialisers are present. In WasmModule.cpp, a couple of places where a segment vector was asserted to be empty have been changed to assert that it contains only passive segments. Attempts to do this using std::all_of and a closure were unsuccessful (see bug 1547031) and instead a debug-only helper function `AllSegmentsArePassive` was added. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D28951 UltraBlame original commit: e81669455530c9d127aafd89c1fdce308b183a68
gecko-dev-updater
pushed a commit
to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified-and-comments-removed
that referenced
this issue
Oct 4, 2019
…=lhansen. Our Wasm implementations current reject data.drop and elem.drop if there is no memory or table in the module. This isn't consistent with the current bulk-memory specification, though. See WebAssembly/bulk-memory-operations#79. This patch fixes that by slightly loosening the relevant checks, so as to allow a segment to be dropped even if there is no memory, providing that that segment is a passive one. Most of the changes are in the test file passive-segs-nonboundary.js: * There are four new checks for data.drop without memory and the equivalents for table.drop. * Test construction function `do_test` has been made more flexible, so it is now possible to independently specify whether a table/memory is present, whether active initialisers are present, and whether passive initialisers are present. In WasmModule.cpp, a couple of places where a segment vector was asserted to be empty have been changed to assert that it contains only passive segments. Attempts to do this using std::all_of and a closure were unsuccessful (see bug 1547031) and instead a debug-only helper function `AllSegmentsArePassive` was added. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D28951 UltraBlame original commit: e81669455530c9d127aafd89c1fdce308b183a68
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
I didn't see this mentioned in overview.md.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: