Skip to content
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

Fix incorrect wat in tests #6207

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 8, 2024
Merged

Fix incorrect wat in tests #6207

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 8, 2024

Conversation

tlively
Copy link
Member

@tlively tlively commented Jan 6, 2024

The new wat parser is much more strict than the legacy wat parser; the latter
accepts all sorts of things that the spec does not allow. To ease an eventual
transition to using the new wat parser by default, update the tests to use the
standard text format in many places where they previously did not. We do not yet
have a way to prevent new errors from being introduced into the test suite, but
at least there will now be many fewer errors when it comes time to make the
switch.

Since branches to loops go to the beginnings of the loops, they should values
matching the input types for the loops (which are always none because we don't
support loop input types). IRBuilder was previously using the output types of
loops to determine what values the branches should carry, which was incorrect.
Fix it.
The new wat parser is much more strict than the legacy wat parser; the latter
accepts all sorts of things that the spec does not allow. To ease an eventual
transition to using the new wat parser by default, update the tests to use the
standard text format in many places where they previously did not. We do not yet
have a way to prevent new errors from being introduced into the test suite, but
at least there will now be many fewer errors when it comes time to make the
switch.
@tlively tlively requested a review from kripken January 6, 2024 01:32
@tlively
Copy link
Member Author

tlively commented Jan 6, 2024

Current dependencies on/for this PR:

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite.

Base automatically changed from parser-loop-labels to main January 6, 2024 01:54
@tlively
Copy link
Member Author

tlively commented Jan 6, 2024

Oops, looks like this includes the commit for the previous PR in it. Please just review "Fix incorrect wat in tests"

@@ -4,57 +4,57 @@
(func $test32 (export "test32")
(call $logf32
(f32.add
(f32.const -nan:0xffff82)
(f32.const -nan:0x7fff82)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why must these nans change?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The original NaNs here have invalid payloads. The spec for this is here.

The fNMag production 'nan:0x' n:hexnum => nan(n) has a side condition (1 <= n < 2^signif(N)) and signif(32) = 23, so the largest allowed NaN payload for a 32-bit float is 2^23 - 1 = 0x7FFFFF.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

@tlively tlively merged commit cc0fab9 into main Jan 8, 2024
15 checks passed
@tlively tlively deleted the fix-tests branch January 8, 2024 19:46
radekdoulik pushed a commit to dotnet/binaryen that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2024
The new wat parser is much more strict than the legacy wat parser; the latter
accepts all sorts of things that the spec does not allow. To ease an eventual
transition to using the new wat parser by default, update the tests to use the
standard text format in many places where they previously did not. We do not yet
have a way to prevent new errors from being introduced into the test suite, but
at least there will now be many fewer errors when it comes time to make the
switch.
@gkdn gkdn mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants