This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 3, 2021. It is now read-only.
Adjust binary format of element segments in the spec #46
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rossberg
reviewed
May 27, 2019
document/core/binary/modules.rst
Outdated
| x{:}\Btableidx~~e{:}\Bexpr~~y^\ast{:}\Bvec(\Bfuncidx) | ||
| &\Rightarrow& \{ \ETABLE~x, \EOFFSET~e, \EINIT~y^\ast \} \\ | ||
| \hex{00}~~e{:}\Bexpr~~y^\ast{:}\Bvec(\Bfuncidx) | ||
| &\Rightarrow& \{ \ETABLE~0, \EOFFSET~e, \EINIT~((\REFFUNC~y)~\END)^\ast \} \\ &&|& |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the ((\REFFUNC~y)~\END)^\ast on the RHS needs to be y^\ast for now, otherwise it won't match with the current AST definition. Same below.
rossberg
approved these changes
May 27, 2019
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes issue #36.
In #18 we decided that the binary encoding of element segments in this proposal should be the same as for the bulk memory proposal. This PR does this change in the specification document.
As far as I can tell, the spec interpreter already has the correct behavior.