Skip to content

Conversation

@sbc100
Copy link
Member

@sbc100 sbc100 commented May 9, 2024

@sbc100 sbc100 requested review from dschuff and tlively May 9, 2024 21:46
Copy link
Member

@tlively tlively left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Avoiding updating all the instructions at once sounds good if we can get away with it, but I'm concerned that the fuzzer will start failing without further fixes. Can you run it locally to check?

@sbc100 sbc100 force-pushed the table64 branch 2 times, most recently from 860fb95 to ff53669 Compare May 10, 2024 19:27
@sbc100
Copy link
Member Author

sbc100 commented May 10, 2024

Update all the table instructions now, and copied the tests from the memory64 proposal.

I had to comment out the lines that use ref.extern N .. this seem to be what we currently do elsewhere.

@sbc100 sbc100 force-pushed the table64 branch 2 times, most recently from c7d0736 to 1f20306 Compare May 10, 2024 19:36
Copy link
Member

@tlively tlively left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good!

Tests is still very limited.  Hopefully we can use the upstream spec
tests soon and avoid having to write our own tests for
`.set/.set/.fill/etc`.

See WebAssembly/memory64#51
@sbc100 sbc100 enabled auto-merge (squash) May 10, 2024 23:16
@sbc100 sbc100 merged commit abc430b into main May 10, 2024
@sbc100 sbc100 deleted the table64 branch May 10, 2024 23:33
@gkdn gkdn mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2024
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.

3 participants