Skip to content

Support (module definition ...) and (module instance ...) in WAST spec tests #8058

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Support (module definition ...) and (module instance ...) in WAST spec tests #8058

wants to merge 17 commits into from
+172 −69

Conversation

@stevenfontanella
Copy link
Member

@stevenfontanella stevenfontanella commented Nov 18, 2025 •
edited
Loading

  • Add support for (module definition ...) and (module instance ...) in WAST spec tests
    • Syntax reference
    • These statements are skipped by the WAST splitter, since wasm-opt can't understand them. In the future, we need some extra work to handle explicit module instantiations correctly here.
    • This fixes the memory.wast spec test. The remaining 3 that currently depend on this syntax still break for other reasons (mentioned in shared.py)
  • Remove extra unneeded call to run_spec_test

@stevenfontanella stevenfontanella force-pushed the module-definition-and-instance-cp branch 3 times, most recently from 2480082 to 7b98b2e Compare November 18, 2025 22:57
tlively
tlively reviewed Nov 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@tlively tlively left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A few initial comments while this is still under construction.

@stevenfontanella stevenfontanella force-pushed the module-definition-and-instance-cp branch from 7b98b2e to 616165c Compare November 19, 2025 22:21
@stevenfontanella
Copy link
Member Author

stevenfontanella commented Nov 19, 2025

(Sorry for the force-push, I already made these changes locally before your comments)

@stevenfontanella stevenfontanella force-pushed the module-definition-and-instance-cp branch from 616165c to e5c9ab4 Compare November 20, 2025 00:24
tlively
tlively reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
stevenfontanella
stevenfontanella commented Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
tlively
tlively reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
@stevenfontanella
Address PR comments about parsing, style
4470a3c
@stevenfontanella
PR fixes
ff0a7ee 
* Fixes for lastModule / lastInstance
* Fix for python f-string in lower python versions
* Fix for Module registration when some params aren't specified
@stevenfontanella
Fix some comments about disabled tests
e1ecc24
@stevenfontanella stevenfontanella marked this pull request as ready for review November 26, 2025 20:48
tlively
tlively reviewed Dec 1, 2025
View reviewed changes
@stevenfontanella stevenfontanella mentioned this pull request Dec 1, 2025
Merged
@stevenfontanella
Copy link
Member Author

stevenfontanella commented Dec 1, 2025

Just realized I can't base this PR on top of #8080 because this branch comes from my fork. For now until #8080 is merged and I re-merge this branch from main, the diff will show up here.

stevenfontanella added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2025
@stevenfontanella
[NFC] Extract out function for parseModuleBody (#8080)
5efa505 
For use in #8058. In some cases (e.g. for parsing `(module definition
...)`), we want to parse the body of a module without the initial
`(module name? ...)` S-expression. `parseModule` parses *either* the
full `(module ...)` S-expression or just the module body since some
cases consist only of a module body. Add `parseModuleBody` which only
parses the module body.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tlively tlively tlively left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@stevenfontanella @tlively