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

Sync with WebAssembly/spec branch wasm-3.0. #107

Merged
merged 294 commits into from
Jan 15, 2025
Merged

Sync with WebAssembly/spec branch wasm-3.0. #107

merged 294 commits into from
Jan 15, 2025

Conversation

dhil
Copy link
Member

@dhil dhil commented Jan 15, 2025

This patch brings in the latest changes to the upstream spec repo (branch wasm-3.0).

ngzhian and others added 30 commits March 7, 2022 10:51
"either" allows us to assert that the a value is in a set of expected
values. This is copied from threads proposal and updated accordingly
to compile.
Test cases are not exhaustive and only exercises edge cases (where
results differ across hardware). No implementation in the interpreter,
only parsing, encoding, and decoding is supported.
rossberg and others added 25 commits November 6, 2024 21:42
- Removed unnecessary/mismatching lookup of table/memory type in execution prose
- Added missing result type lookup in formal rule for table.size and memory.size
- Fixed computation of -1 result value for table.grow and table.size to work for i64
- Some fixes around specification of text format for inline elements/data shorthand
- Fixed matching rules for tabletype/memtype to enforce same address type

Split out from WebAssembly/spec#1839
Interpreter:

- Fixed evaluation of v128 load/store instructions to work with i64
- Reworked bulk operation execution to still reduce to well-typed instructions for i32
- Added missing size check to table allocation
- Various minor refactorings and clean-ups

Tests:

- Added tests for size check in i64 table and memory type limits

Split out from WebAssembly/spec#1839
Also test that the instructions trap when the offset and size overflow
back to zero, with and without the segments having been dropped.
…(#573)

Specifically around the requirements that both field types have the same
mutability and that the storage type must be exactly the same when the field
type is mutable.
@dhil dhil requested a review from rossberg January 15, 2025 10:34
@dhil
Copy link
Member Author

dhil commented Jan 15, 2025

I will rebase #105 on top of this one.

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.

Rubberstamp. Just be sure to NOT squash this, otherwise we'll likely get merge conflicts in the future.

@dhil dhil merged commit 0ebce95 into WebAssembly:main Jan 15, 2025
12 checks passed
@dhil dhil deleted the sync branch January 15, 2025 13:16
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.