Skip to content

Conversation

@rossberg
Copy link
Member

@rossberg rossberg commented Sep 5, 2017

Plus a few random typos.

This change is inspired by discussion with Conrad Watt, who pointed out a problem with the previous formulation.

Copy link
Member

@binji binji left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just did a quick once-over, but it looks good to me.

@conrad-watt
Copy link
Contributor

conrad-watt commented Sep 6, 2017

Hi Andreas

We briefly discussed the possibility of removing the store constraints from the host function reduction rule, since they're not necessary any more. This is a stylistic choice, but it would make my model slightly prettier if I'm going for "eyeball-close" correspondence with the spec rules. Looks good to me in any case!

@rossberg
Copy link
Member Author

rossberg commented Sep 6, 2017

@conrad-watt, right. Done, adjusting the text accordingly. PTAL.

Copy link
Contributor

@conrad-watt conrad-watt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

every :ref:`host function instance <syntax-funcinst>` must be :ref:`valid <valid-hostfuncinst>`,
which means that it adheres to suitable pre- and post-conditions:
under a :ref:`valid store <valid-store>` :math:`S`, and given arguments :math:`\val^n` matching the ascribed parameter types :math:`t_1^n`,
executing the host function must produce a valid store :math:`S'` that is an :ref:`extension <extend-store>` of :math:`S` and a result matching the ascribed result types :math:`t_2^m`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Possible nitpick: "result types" should be "result type"

@rossberg rossberg merged commit 772d877 into master Sep 6, 2017
@rossberg rossberg deleted the spec.hostfunc branch September 6, 2017 14:35
rossberg added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 9, 2024
Test out-of-bounds element segment indexing for `array.new_elem`
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.

4 participants