-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
Update *.witx files for the witx 0.9 syntax #13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Move constants to a separate list in `Document`
Remove the `Type::Flags` variant in favor of a witx-specific way to define a bitflags with a number of constants.
Instead of having a separate variant for `Char8` and `Usize` instead store boolean flags on `U8` and `U32` whether they're intended for these language-specific purposes. This additionally changes to require `@witx` when parsing `char8` to ensure usage is flagged as witx-specific.
This updates the Proposals.md page, fixing a few broken links, and updating the names of the proposals to match the actual proposal repositories.
…st` (#392) * Add a wast-like testsuite for the witx tool As the functionality of `witx` grows this will hopefully make adding tests for new functionality as well as new kinds of tests easier. The goal is to make it very easy to drop a test file with various directives to exercise the functionality of `witx` and its internals. For now the testsuite is quite simple, simply asserting whether documents are either valid or invalid. My hope, though, is that this can be expanded over time with more styles of assertions directives. * Migrate union test to `union.witxt` * Add documentation/roundtrip testing to all documents * Translate multi-module test suite to `*.witxt` * Move wasi tests into `witxt` test suites * Convert representation tests to `*.witxt` * Rebased onto origin/main
It's also worth noting that this probably shouldn't get merged until WebAssembly/WASI#395 is merged, at which point in time I'll rebase. |
* Take another step towards interface types This commit is another large refactoring on the tail of #391 which is intended to help march one step closer to using pure interface types for specifying WASI and using `*.witx` files. Contained here is a large amount of refactoring of the `*.witx` files, the internals of the `witx` crate, and how code generators are supposed to work. At the `*.witx` level, some notable changes have been made: * All functions returning results now return `(expected ok? (error $errno))`. This helps signify that the intention of all functions is that they return a packaged value which is either a successful result or the erroneous error code on failure. ABI-wise nothing has changed, but this is intended to model more closely what the interface-types API of this would be. * The `flags` type in `*.witx` now desugars as a struct-of-bools rather than simply an `int`. This doesn't have any effect on the ABI today, but it does change the AST and type-level representation of these types. All existing `*.witx` files in this repository have been updated for all phases with these new forms. To reiterate, though, no details of the ABI have changed (or at least not intentionally). Everything should still be ABI-compatible with before. Under the hood for code generators this is a very large breaking change. The intention of this commit is to start moving code generators relying on `witx` into the direction that we'll end up with interface types. Namely the `coretypes` module is entirely replaced with a new `abi` module with the intention of handling lots more high-level details of translation than the previous module did. The `InterfaceFunc` type now sports two new methods: `call_wasm` and `call_interface`. These two methods represent the two halves of lifting/lowering operations performed by code generators. The `call_wasm` function takes interface types values (or whatever they are represented as in the source language) and converts them to wasm types to call a wasm import. The wasm import's return values are then "deserialized" back into the language's interface types values too. The `call_interface` function is the opposite, it assumes that you're coming from wasm values and calling, e.g., a host function with interface values. The `abi` module is refactored with an `Instruction` `enum` which lists out what are the current set of "adapter instructions". These adapter instructions are intended to somewhat model the eventual idea of adapter functions and their instructions, but for now they're pretty specific to WASI as-is today. All instructions currently model what WASI currently does, sometimes in very specific manners. It's expected that the `Instruction` type will be in flux as we tweak the ABI of WASI over time, but the current set of instructions will likely only be expanded because of maintaining compatibility with the current snapshot. The expected usage of `Instruction` is that code generators will implement how to generate code for each `Instruction`. This should be a very low-level operation (generating code per instruction) and should be in theory quite easy to implement. Not all code generators need to implement all instructions depending on their use case. Additionally WASI as-is today doesn't always exercise all types of instructions. The next steps after a PR like this include starting to define a new ABI for WASI which supports all types in all positions rather than the current ABI which supports only a limited subset of types in some positions. The intention is that this new ABI may add a new instruction or two but will generally not be a large breaking change for all existing code generators. Some new additions are expected but other than that existing code generators updated to use this PR will require little effort to support new ABIs. * Add more documentation and some more tests for shorthand syntax * Bump to 0.9.0 and bump wast dependency * Support variants as arguments Same as records, they use pointers * Fix a typo
9e7c327
to
2706bce
Compare
Ok should be good for merging now. The changes specific to this proposal are in 2706bce |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense to me (except for the (expected ...)
stuff but I think it looks roughly like we are defining the two sides of a result
; perhaps it should be more symmetrical, e.g., (result $r (expected $thing) (error $errno))
?).
Ah I'm just lifting the syntax from https://github.com/WebAssembly/interface-types/blob/master/proposals/interface-types/Explainer.md#interface-types |
This is a preparatory PR to follow-up from WebAssembly/WASI#395
This commit merges the current WASI main branch into this repository and then adds a commit on top which updates the
*.witx
files to follow the new conventions, notably around type names and result types.