Contracts: Enabled signed extension#14565
Conversation
Ideally, |
|
fair I will close the other PR and rebase this one on master |
4b3c5c4 to
164b885
Compare
xermicus
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How's this tested or do we have a wat fixture for this in master already?
@xermicus what kind of .wat do we write to proof that we support signed_extension? |
|
Probably something very similar to what wasmi uses to test it should work |
Co-authored-by: Sasha Gryaznov <hi@agryaznov.com>
juangirini
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM I don't give it the green check mark cause of @agryaznov's comment
|
bot merge |
* Contracts enable signed extension * Add test * fix * xx * Update frame/contracts/fixtures/sign_extension.wat Co-authored-by: Sasha Gryaznov <hi@agryaznov.com> * move tests --------- Co-authored-by: Sasha Gryaznov <hi@agryaznov.com>
* Contracts enable signed extension * Add test * fix * xx * Update frame/contracts/fixtures/sign_extension.wat Co-authored-by: Sasha Gryaznov <hi@agryaznov.com> * move tests --------- Co-authored-by: Sasha Gryaznov <hi@agryaznov.com>
Ideally we fix my other PR #14563 so we can have a test that verify that an Ink contract compiled with 1.70 works properly