memory imports #124
memory imports #124
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
core
execution
validation
tests
priority-high
priority-medium
labels
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
|
| if imported_memories.len() > 1 { | ||
| return Err(Error::MoreThanOneMemory); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| if imported_memories.len() > 1 { | |
| return Err(Error::MoreThanOneMemory); | |
| } | |
| #[cfg(not(multiple_memories))] // maybe without this | |
| if local_memories.len() + imported_memories.len() > 1 { | |
| return Err(Error::MoreThanOneMemory); | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the multiple memories proposal, can you have more than 1 local memory? Or is it multiple local, multiple imported?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking through the code, I disagree. We have bits in execution_info that MUST have a single memory otherwise it panics.
| if local_memories.len() > 1 { | ||
| return Err(Error::MoreThanOneMemory); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| if local_memories.len() > 1 { | |
| return Err(Error::MoreThanOneMemory); | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not under #cfg?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking through the code, I disagree. We have bits in execution_info that MUST have a single memory otherwise it panics.
| @@ -441,7 +469,7 @@ where | |||
| ty: *ty, | |||
| locals, | |||
| code_expr, | |||
| // TODO fix this ugly clone | |||
| // TODO: Not used any more. Should we remove it? | |||
| sidetable: sidetable.clone(), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we should remove this, otherwise there might be confusion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cemonem agree?
|
|
||
| self.module_map | ||
| .insert(module_name.to_string(), self.modules.len()); | ||
| self.modules.push(exec_info); | ||
|
|
||
| let local_sidetables = validation_info |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since Sidetables are not supposed to be modified after initialization, would it be better if we'd attach them to the FunctionDeclarations?
Mr. Titzer does the exact same thing where the Sidetable is attached to its corresponding FuncDecl.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Letting them attatched to FunctionInst gives us headaches in terms of rust optimizations
What I am doing there is not to modify the sidetables, I am just shoving them in an array (and syncing it with function indexing by inserting dummy tables for imported functions which are not used anyway)
src/execution/interpreter_loop.rs
Outdated
| @@ -477,9 +493,12 @@ pub(super) fn run<H: HookSet>( | |||
| let mem = modules[*current_module_idx] | |||
| .store | |||
| .mems | |||
| .first() | |||
| .first_mut() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I still think we should shrink down the interpreter loop massively through the use of macros
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought you loved +4000 lines of code changed D:
Jokes aside, I agree that we should abstract away some parts of the interpreter loop, though I'm not sure I agree with macros.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
check element / look at the get_mem function. Abstracting it any more isn't worthwhile imho. ctrl+f works fast enough
Signed-off-by: George Cosma <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: George Cosma <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: George Cosma <[email protected]>
george-cosma
force-pushed
the
dev/global_store
branch
from
3566104 to
a989fcf
Compare
Pull Request Overview
This pull request adds/changes/fixes...
Testing Strategy
This pull request was tested by...
TODO or Help Wanted
This pull request still needs...
Formatting
cargo fmtcargo checkcargo buildcargo docnix fmtGithub Issue
This pull request closes <GITHUB_ISSUE>