Fix various TODOs #72
Conversation
document/core/exec/instructions.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| 6. Assert: due to :ref:`validation <valid-table.copy>`, a value of :ref:`value type <syntax-valtype>` |I32| is on the top of the stack. | ||
| 7. Assert: due to :ref:`validation <valid-table.copy>`, :math:`F.\AMODULE.\MITABLES[y]` exists. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, numbering glitch. Fixed.
document/core/exec/instructions.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| 3. Let :math:`\X{ta}` be the :ref:`table address <syntax-tableaddr>` :math:`F.\AMODULE.\MITABLES[0]`. | ||
| 3. Let :math:`\X{ta}_d` be the :ref:`table address <syntax-tableaddr>` :math:`F.\AMODULE.\MITABLES[x]`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do you use _d and _s here instead of _x and _y? It seems to me that d and s are used below, but with different meanings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Used that at first, but since almost everything is expressed in terms of s and d from here on, it seemed clearer to focus on the relation to those names. Changed back.
| .................... | ||
|
|
||
| .. todo:: TODO: multi tables | ||
| :math:`\TABLEINIT~x~y` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we use s like segment here instead of y? Or could we even use seg?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are in the syntactic class of indices, which are ranged over by x and y per the convention established in the respective section.
|
@lars-t-hansen, are you eager to review as well or shall I land with @gahaas's approval? |
|
Oh, I missed the request. I'm fine if you just want to land it. |
After rebasing on the bulk proposal, this PR fixes all open todos in interpreter and spec:
itemkeyword to syntactically represent multi-instr element expressions, analogous to syntax for offset. [spec/interpreter]Two things still missing after this (modulo new design questions):