| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The new wat parser is much more strict than the legacy wat parser; the latter
accepts all sorts of things that the spec does not allow. To ease an eventual
transition to using the new wat parser by default, update the tests to use the
standard text format in many places where they previously did not. We do not yet
have a way to prevent new errors from being introduced into the test suite, but
at least there will now be many fewer errors when it comes time to make the
switch.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We previously supported a non-standard `(func "name" ...` syntax for declaring
functions exported with the quoted name. Since that is not part of the standard
text format, drop support for it, replacing it with the standard `(func $name
(export "name") ...` syntax instead.
Also replace our other usage of the quoted form in our text output, which was
where we quoted names containing characters that are not allowed to appear in
standard names. To handle that case, adjust our output from `"$name"` to
`$"name"`, which is the standards-track way of supporting such names. Also fix
how we detect non-standard name characters to match the spec.
Update the lit test output generation script to account for these changes,
including by making the `$` prefix on names mandatory. This causes the script to
stop interpreting declarative element segments with the `(elem declare ...`
syntax as being named "declare", so prevent our generated output from regressing
by counting "declare" as a name in the script.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The code there looks for a "sign-extend": (x << a) >> b where the
right shift is signed. If a = b = 24 for example then that is a sign
extend of an 8-bit value (it works by shifting the 8-bit value's sign bit
to the position of the 32-bit value's sign bit, then shifting all the way
back, which fills everything above 8 bits with the sign bit). The tricky
thing is that in some cases we can handle a != b - but we forgot a
place to check that. Specifically, a repeated sign-extend is not
necessary, but if the outer one has extra shifts, we can't do it.
This is annoyingly complex code, but for purposes of reviewing this
PR, you can see (unless I messed up) that the only change is to
ensure that when we look for a repeated sign extend, then we
only optimize that case when there are no extra shifts. And a
repeated sign-extend is obviously ok to remove,
(((x << a) >> a) << a) >> a => (x << a) >> a
This is an ancient bug, showing how hard it can be to find certain
patterns either by fuzzing or in the real world...
Fixes #3362
|
| |
|
|
| |
values (#3399)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
X - Y <= 0
=>
X <= Y
That is true mathematically, but not in the case of an overflow, e.g.
X=10, Y=0x8000000000000000. X - Y is a negative number, so
X - Y <= 0 is true. But it is not true that X <= Y (as Y is negative, but
X is not).
See discussion in #3303 (comment)
The actual regression was in #3275, but the fuzzer had an easier time
finding it due to #3303
|
|
|
Specifically, pick a simple positive canonical NaN as the NaN output, when the output
is a NaN. This is the same as what tools like wabt do.
This fixes a testcase found by the fuzzer on #3289 but it was not that PR's fault.
|
