When interpreting the Call instruction, we mark the return continuation of the sub-process as the same as the current calling frame. Should we use the 'next continuation' (newK) for returning from a sub-process, like eval(body, List(), newFrame, newK, List(newK), 0)?
|
case Call(f) if frame.module.funcs(f).isInstanceOf[FuncDef] => |
|
val FuncDef(_, FuncBodyDef(ty, _, locals, body)) = frame.module.funcs(f) |
|
val args = stack.take(ty.inps.size).reverse |
|
val newStack = stack.drop(ty.inps.size) |
|
val frameLocals = args ++ locals.map(_ => I32V(0)) // GW: always I32? or depending on their types? |
|
val newFrame = Frame(frame.module, ArrayBuffer(frameLocals: _*)) |
|
val newK: Cont[Ans] = (retStack) => |
|
eval(rest, retStack.take(ty.out.size) ++ newStack, frame, kont, trail, ret) |
|
// We push newK on the trail since function creates a new block to escape |
|
// (more or less like `return`) |
|
eval(body, List(), newFrame, newK, newK :: trail, ret+1) |
