| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
As the name of a class, uppercase seems better here.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
We used the target's type for the read from the source, but due to
subtyping those might be different.
Found by the fuzzer.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Once support for tuple.extract lands in the new WAT parser, this arity immediate
will let the parser determine how many values it should pop off the stack to
serve as the tuple operand to `tuple.extract`. This will usually coincide with
the arity of a tuple-producing instruction on top of the stack, but in the
spirit of treating the input as a proper stack machine, it will not have to and
the parser will still work correctly.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, the number of tuple elements was inferred from the number of
s-expression children of the `tuple.make` expression, but that scheme would not
work in the new wat parser, where s-expressions are optional and cannot be
semantically meaningful.
Update the text format to take the number of tuple elements (i.e. the tuple
arity) as an immediate. This new format will be able to be implemented in the
new parser as follow-on work.
|
| | |
|
|
|
In some cases tuples are obviously not needed, such as when they are only used
in local operations and make/extract. Such tuples are not used as return values or
in control flow structures, so we might as well lower them to individual locals per
lane, which other passes can optimize a lot better.
I believe LLVM does the same with its own tuples: it lowers them as much as
possible, leaving only necessary ones.
Fixes #5923
|
