Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 15, 2025. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@sbc100
Copy link
Member

@sbc100 sbc100 commented Apr 30, 2024

No description provided.

@sbc100 sbc100 force-pushed the table64_interp branch 3 times, most recently from d5fcb12 to ce08751 Compare April 30, 2024 19:21
@sbc100 sbc100 requested review from dschuff and rossberg April 30, 2024 19:21
@sbc100
Copy link
Member Author

sbc100 commented Apr 30, 2024

I didn't end up duplicating all of the table.* tests here but just enough to get a little coverage for each instruction. Let me know if you think its worth duplicating more.

Copy link
Member

@rossberg rossberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, mostly nits, except for the question about the table size limit.

@sbc100 sbc100 force-pushed the table64_interp branch from 835ff7d to 6ea555a Compare May 1, 2024 15:38
@sbc100 sbc100 merged commit dc4d236 into main May 1, 2024
@sbc100 sbc100 deleted the table64_interp branch May 1, 2024 16:00
Copy link
Contributor

@alexcrichton alexcrichton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Poking at this I think there's one issue I flagged below, but mind also adding tests for table.copy? That'll likely want to inherit the same logic for memory.copy where the src/dst offsets have static types but the length-to-copy is the minimum of the two sizes.

(table.init $t0 1 (i32.const 7) (i32.const 0) (i32.const 4)))
(table.init $t0 2 (i32.const 7) (i32.const 0) (i32.const 4)))
(func (export "test-t64")
(table.init $t64 2 (i32.const 7) (i32.const 0) (i32.const 4)))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this trailing i32.const needs to be i64.const?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for catching.. taking a look now.

@sbc100 sbc100 mentioned this pull request May 3, 2024
11 tasks
sbc100 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2024
Add missing memory specifier to memory.init execution semantics
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants