Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[js-api] Add specification. #86

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 23, 2021
Merged

Conversation

Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor

@Ms2ger Ms2ger commented Jul 16, 2019

No description provided.

@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ms2ger commented Jul 17, 2019

This is based on what I understand the Chromium behaviour to be; it's not clear to me if that is the current consensus.

Probably this will need some text changes after the changes to func_invoke land in the core spec.

@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ms2ger commented Aug 13, 2019

Any more thoughts on this, anyone?

@aheejin
Copy link
Member

aheejin commented Aug 13, 2019

Could you split this PR into adding the existing base JS API and the modified part? It is hard to see the difference related to exceptions.

@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ms2ger commented Aug 14, 2019

The exceptions-related change is in the last commit.

@aheejin
Copy link
Member

aheejin commented Aug 14, 2019

Thank you! But I still think splitting this is worth it, because it's possible we end up adding more commits to this, in which case it is hard to see only the related changes later. What do you think? @mstarzinger

@mstarzinger
Copy link

+1 on splitting out the unmodified import of of the js-api documents. Those should be uncontroversial and we could land them right away. All further delta are then easier to see and review I think.

@Ms2ger Ms2ger force-pushed the spec-js-api branch 2 times, most recently from 58675fc to 1fe9cff Compare August 21, 2019 08:49
@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ms2ger commented Aug 21, 2019

I've rebased and updated the PR to what I think the behaviour is; it's not very formal, but that'll need to wait until the core spec exists.

@aheejin
Copy link
Member

aheejin commented Oct 31, 2019

I'm very sorry for long radio silence 😢

I think there are some issues to be resolved (regarding traps and such) before we finalize the JS API. Does this PR describe the current behavior of V8? If so, it is likely subject to change, how about waiting on landing this? I opened #89 to discuss some of the issues.

@Ms2ger Ms2ger force-pushed the spec-js-api branch 2 times, most recently from e841f94 to 789acfa Compare May 22, 2020 15:20
ioannad pushed a commit to ioannad/exception-handling that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2020
…embly#86)

* Fix expected trap messages.

The spec interpreter says "element segment dropped", rather than
"elements segment dropped".

* Fix "zero len, but dst offset out of bounds" test.

Fix this test to test what it's comment says it's testing.

* Add more tests for zero-length operations.

* Update the Overview text to reflect the zero-length at-the-end semantics.
ioannad pushed a commit to ioannad/exception-handling that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2020
… (WebAssembly#87)

Change the test generators to use `ref.func` and remove `passive`.

At some point we'll want to remove the generators, but for let's try to
maintain them.
ioannad pushed a commit to ioannad/exception-handling that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2020
@Ms2ger Ms2ger force-pushed the spec-js-api branch 2 times, most recently from 114f619 to 0326ded Compare June 10, 2021 15:54
@aheejin
Copy link
Member

aheejin commented Jun 22, 2021

Is this up-to-date with the current spec? (It doesn't look like it) Are you planning to update this?

document/js-api/index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
document/js-api/index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@ioannad ioannad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apart from the two possible changes suggested, it LGTM.

Co-authored-by: Ioanna M Dimitriou H <idimitriou@igalia.com>
@Ms2ger Ms2ger merged commit 7159387 into WebAssembly:master Jun 23, 2021
@Ms2ger Ms2ger deleted the spec-js-api branch June 23, 2021 14:59
Copy link
Member

@aheejin aheejin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry that I wasn't able to review this at the time of merging! I'm not very familiar with bikeshed and WebIDL syntax, so I'm trying to understand the current EH JS API as written. Here are some questions:

1. If |result|.\[[Type]] is <emu-const>throw</emu-const>, then:
1. If |v| [=implements=] {{RuntimeException}},
1. Let |type| be |v|.\[[Type]].
1. Let |payload| be |v|.\[[Payload]].
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(|store|, <var ignore>val</var>* | [=error=] | (exception |exntag| |payload|)

to

(|store|, <var ignore>val</var>* | [=error=] | (exception |exntag| |payload| |stack|)

?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ping

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't have time today to page #189 back in, but I'll try to work on it next week.

Comment on lines +179 to +180
for: externtype
text: tag
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this externaltype/tag special and not just

text:tag

? And because they are differently defined they are used in different ways too:

externtype/table:

1. If |externtype| is of the form [=table=] <var ignore>tabletype</var>,

externtype/tag:
1. If |externtype| is of the form [=externtype/tag=] |attribute| <var ignore>functype</var>,

I think either way is fine, but do you think it'd be better to make them consistent? The same for external value/tag too.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's basically namespacing - I don't recall if I had an actual conflict with "tag" or if I just thought it made more sense. I'd be happy to change the others as well, but I'd rather do that in the main spec repo directly.

1. If |externtype| is of the form [=externtype/tag=] |attribute| <var ignore>functype</var>,
1. Assert: |attribute| is [=tagtype/attribute/exception=].
1. If |v| does not [=implement=] {{Tag}}, throw a {{LinkError}} exception.
1. Let |tagaddr| be |v|.\[[Address]].
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Which address is this? For tables and globals, it says |v|.\[[Table]] and |v|.[[Global]]. Is there a set of values that v contains?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the field set in "create a Tag object" algorithm below. The supported fields depend on the interface that the value implements, which is checked in the step above.

Comment on lines +1036 to +1037
1. Let « [=ref.extern=] |externaddr| » be |payload|.
1. Throw the result of [=retrieving an extern value=] from |externaddr|.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need these steps? Aren't these two steps cancelling each other?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't fully understand your question. The goal of the "JavaScript exception tag" check is to ensure an exception thrown from js → wasm → js maintains its identity.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I think I was confused. I thought you apply ref.extern to the returned payload; I guess this means if the payload is the form « [=ref.extern=] |externaddr| », then we retrieve an extern value from externaddr. Right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, exactly. If you have thoughts on how to make this destructuring assignment pattern more readable, I'd love to hear them.

urlPrefix: https://heycam.github.io/webidl/; spec: WebIDL
type: dfn
text: create a namespace object; url: create-a-namespace-object
urlPrefix: https://webassembly.github.io/js-types/js-api/; spec: WebAssembly JS API (JS Type Reflection)
type: abstract-op; text: FromValueType; url: abstract-opdef-fromvaluetype
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where is this FromValueType? I can't find it in https://webassembly.github.io/js-types/js-api/#abstract-opdef-fromvaluetype. Also ToValueType is defined within this file; then why is only this method from the type reflection proposal?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, the publishing is broken - WebAssembly/js-types#23. js-types only needs one direction, but it seems risky to just copy/paste. I can turn the dependency in the other direction if that turns out to be helpful.

Comment on lines +1227 to +1228
To <dfn>create a RuntimeException object</dfn> from a [=tag address=] |tagAddress| and [=list=]
of WebAssembly values |payload|, perform the following steps:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How are "create an Exception object" algorithm and "new Exception(exceptionTag, payload) constructor steps" algorithm different?

To <dfn>create an Exception object</dfn> from a [=tag address=] |tagAddress| and [=list=]
of WebAssembly values |payload|, perform the following steps:
1. Let |store| be the [=surrounding agent=]'s [=associated store=].
1. Let |types| be [=tag_parameters=](|store|, |tagAddress|).
1. Assert: |types|'s [=list/size=] is |payload|'s [=list/size=].
1. [=list/iterate|For each=] |value| and |resultType| of |payload| and |types|, paired linearly,
1. Assert: |value|'s type matches |resultType|.
1. Let |exception| be a [=new=] {{Exception}}.
1. Set |exception|.\[[Type]] to |tagAddress|.
1. Set |exception|.\[[Payload]] to |payload|.
1. Return |exception|.

The <dfn constructor for=Exception
lt="Exception(exceptionTag, payload)">new Exception(|exceptionTag|, |payload|)</dfn>
constructor steps are:
1. Let |store| be the [=surrounding agent=]'s [=associated store=].
1. Let |types| be [=tag_parameters=](|store|, |exceptionTag|.\[[Address]]).
1. If |types|'s [=list/size=] is not |payload|'s [=list/size=],
1. Throw a {{TypeError}}.
1. Let |wasmPayload| be « ».
1. [=list/iterate|For each=] |value| and |resultType| of |payload| and |types|, paired linearly,
1. [=list/Append=] ? [=ToWebAssemblyValue=](|value|, |resultType|) to |wasmPayload|.
1. Set **this**.\[[Type]] to |exceptionTag|.\[[Address]].
1. Set **this**.\[[Payload]] to |wasmPayload|.

Why do they exist separately?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"create an Exception object" is when you already have the wasm values; "new Exception" is the js-side constructor called from webidl. I don't see a super obvious way to share more code between them, unfortunately.

Comment on lines +1232 to +1234
1. Assert: |types|'s [=list/size=] is |payload|'s [=list/size=].
1. [=list/iterate|For each=] |value| and |resultType| of |payload| and |types|, paired linearly,
1. Assert: |value|'s type matches |resultType|.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here we assert for invariants, but in the constructor algorithm below we throw. What's the difference?

1. Assert: |value|'s type matches |resultType|.
1. Let |exception| be a [=new=] {{RuntimeException}}.
1. Set |exception|.\[[Type]] to |tagAddress|.
1. Set |exception|.\[[Payload]] to |payload|.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the constructor algorithm below, we run ToWebAssemblyValue on each payload value, but here we do not. What's the difference?

For any [=associated store=] |store|, the result of
[=tag_parameters=](|store|, [=JavaScript exception tag=]) must be « [=externref=] ».

Issue: Should it be possible for `catch <JS-exception-tag>` to extract the payload from an exception with this tag?
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why should it be not possible? Wasm's catch wouldn't be able to examine the internals of the externref payload, but that's true for all externrefs, no?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't feel strongly either way, but to support it, we need to expose the tag to core wasm somehow, right? I'm a bit fuzzy on how that would work.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess the only way wasm can catch JS exceptions is to import the JS exception tag. Can we define the tag in the JS side and make wasm import it?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ping in case this was missed :) Do you think this would work?

Comment on lines +1294 to +1299
To <dfn for=WebAssembly>throw</dfn> with a [=tag address=] |type| and matching [=list=] of WebAssembly values |payload|, perform the following steps:

1. Unwind the stack until reaching the *catching try block* given |type|.
1. Invoke the catch block with |payload|.

Note: This algorithm is expected to be moved into the core specification.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this specific to JS exceptions?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, this is supposed to be basically equivalent to the throw instruction in core wasm. The core spec wasn't finished when I wrote this, so I put this here so I had an api to use in the rest of the spec.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Ms2ger Ms2ger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the reply, I hope this clarifies. Let me know if anything is still confusing.

Comment on lines +179 to +180
for: externtype
text: tag
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's basically namespacing - I don't recall if I had an actual conflict with "tag" or if I just thought it made more sense. I'd be happy to change the others as well, but I'd rather do that in the main spec repo directly.

urlPrefix: https://heycam.github.io/webidl/; spec: WebIDL
type: dfn
text: create a namespace object; url: create-a-namespace-object
urlPrefix: https://webassembly.github.io/js-types/js-api/; spec: WebAssembly JS API (JS Type Reflection)
type: abstract-op; text: FromValueType; url: abstract-opdef-fromvaluetype
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, the publishing is broken - WebAssembly/js-types#23. js-types only needs one direction, but it seems risky to just copy/paste. I can turn the dependency in the other direction if that turns out to be helpful.

1. If |externtype| is of the form [=externtype/tag=] |attribute| <var ignore>functype</var>,
1. Assert: |attribute| is [=tagtype/attribute/exception=].
1. If |v| does not [=implement=] {{Tag}}, throw a {{LinkError}} exception.
1. Let |tagaddr| be |v|.\[[Address]].
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the field set in "create a Tag object" algorithm below. The supported fields depend on the interface that the value implements, which is checked in the step above.

Comment on lines +1036 to +1037
1. Let « [=ref.extern=] |externaddr| » be |payload|.
1. Throw the result of [=retrieving an extern value=] from |externaddr|.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't fully understand your question. The goal of the "JavaScript exception tag" check is to ensure an exception thrown from js → wasm → js maintains its identity.

Comment on lines +1227 to +1228
To <dfn>create a RuntimeException object</dfn> from a [=tag address=] |tagAddress| and [=list=]
of WebAssembly values |payload|, perform the following steps:
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"create an Exception object" is when you already have the wasm values; "new Exception" is the js-side constructor called from webidl. I don't see a super obvious way to share more code between them, unfortunately.

For any [=associated store=] |store|, the result of
[=tag_parameters=](|store|, [=JavaScript exception tag=]) must be « [=externref=] ».

Issue: Should it be possible for `catch <JS-exception-tag>` to extract the payload from an exception with this tag?
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't feel strongly either way, but to support it, we need to expose the tag to core wasm somehow, right? I'm a bit fuzzy on how that would work.

Comment on lines +1294 to +1299
To <dfn for=WebAssembly>throw</dfn> with a [=tag address=] |type| and matching [=list=] of WebAssembly values |payload|, perform the following steps:

1. Unwind the stack until reaching the *catching try block* given |type|.
1. Invoke the catch block with |payload|.

Note: This algorithm is expected to be moved into the core specification.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, this is supposed to be basically equivalent to the throw instruction in core wasm. The core spec wasn't finished when I wrote this, so I put this here so I had an api to use in the rest of the spec.

@aheejin
Copy link
Member

aheejin commented Feb 12, 2022

@Ms2ger Thanks for the explanation!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants