This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 3, 2021. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 3, 2021. It is now read-only.
[test] Bulk instructions with multiple tables #74
Description
The bulk proposal adds new table instructions, while this proposal adds multiple tables. The intersection of the two proposals has been implemented and spec'ced here after rebasing this on bulk, but we also need to extend the existing tests for those bulk instructions. In particular, test table.copy between different tables is a somewhat interesting case.
The respective tests are generated by scripts. @lars-t-hansen, would you or somebody else familiar with those scripts be willing to extend them?
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels
Activity
[-][test] Need test for bulk table instructions with multiple tables[/-][+][test] Tests for bulk instructions with multiple tables[/+][-][test] Tests for bulk instructions with multiple tables[/-][+][test] Bulk instructions with multiple tables[/+]lars-t-hansen commentedon Jan 16, 2020
@rossberg, Yeah, I can look into that, we've probably updated them similarly on our side already. I'll ping you if I have further questions.
fitzgen commentedon Feb 12, 2020
Just noticed that while the text format has
xandytable indices fortable.copy, the binary encoding still only has0x00 0x00placeholders. (Aside: maybe we should usesanddfor "source" and "destination" instead ofxandy? Or something else more descriptive.)Additionally, the validation spec text does not take table indices into account, only mentions a hard-coded
table[0]. (The execution spec text, on the other hand, does seem to take multiple tables into account).Should I file new issue(s) for the binary encoding and validation bits, or is this issue appropriate for tracking these multi-table / non-zero table uses of
table.copy?rossberg commentedon Feb 13, 2020
Ah, thanks! Yeah, I think having a single issue is sufficient.
rossberg commentedon Feb 13, 2020
@fitzgen, fixed by #80, thanks!
lars-t-hansen commentedon Feb 27, 2020
There also seem to be no call_indirect tests through tables other than the default table?
rossberg commentedon Feb 27, 2020
@lars-t-hansen, good point. See #83.