Conversation
Member
|
With this change, is the obvious bottom-up algo described here valid? If not, I'd be interested to know what are the cases which differ. |
Member
Author
|
@lukewagner, yes, that's the idea: you simply do a join of all branches targeting the block, wrt to the trivial subtyping semi-lattice that has Void as its top type. |
|
Thank you. |
Member
|
Great, lgtm |
Member
Author
|
Landing with LGTM and no objections |
ngzhian
added a commit
to ngzhian/spec
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 4, 2021
dhil
pushed a commit
to dhil/webassembly-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2023
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 reverses #180, and adds a number of corresponding tests.
Motivation: not allowing optional operands to be implicitly dropped (1) reduced the compositionality of the language, (2) made it harder to allow multiple targets (like with a br_if also returning its operand), and (3) put an extra burden on bottom-up type checkers, where the arity might not be known upfront. And with multiple value, we eventually would want to lift this restriction again anyway.
This should address issues #227, and enable WebAssembly/design#539.
@jcbeyler, you filed #179, which lead to #180. Are you okay with reverting to status ante quo?