Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason this fails is that the first argument to assert_eq isn't an arbitrary expression, it must be a fixed form (assert_eq (invoke ...) ...). This relates to trying to limit how much expression evaluation happens in the scripting language, compared to within real wasm code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should I create a second module that exports functions called "test{feature}" and then on outer asserts call those?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't quite follow what you're suggesting. In general, we try to do most of the computation inside wasm and then just assert the result (or, when #54 merges, printing output and asserting output match with a .log file in expected-output).
|
Tentatively closing since patch is rather out of date and calls now have a lot more tests. Feel free to reopen. |
This proposes to use the idea suggested by WebAssembly#58 on using `br_on_exn` instead of `if_except`.
…ind_test Remove use of let from func.bind test
Remove fpenv from overview, add proposed spec text on Relaxed operations
spec:
WebAssembly@ffb5e3b4
exception-handling:
WebAssembly/exception-handling@76419ef8
gc:
WebAssembly/gc@cfcd13e1
function-references:
WebAssembly/function-references@9b0e2401
multi-memory:
WebAssembly/multi-memory@b6a086ba
This change was automatically generated by `update-testsuite.sh`
2 participants
the idea is to test call and call_indirect, but since I can't get to call call_indirect without a syntax error I start with simple call tests.
notice that at the bottom there's a commented test that fails.