validator/operators.rs: refine some handling of control stack + comments #2427
+27
−46
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
|
Oh I think the second commit here, 4ead261, didn't make it into the merge queue so after merging that change wasn't included. Feel free to include that though in a subsequent (or parallel PR) |
Contributor
Author
|
Sure, sorry we raced and thank you for the quick review! I'll tag it on to #2429. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR consolidates some of the validator's manipulation of the control stack into the push_ctrl/push_bare_ctrl functions, so that individual operator validator functions no longer need to directly manipulate the control stack. (It also fixes a confusing comment.)
This is preparation for an "atomic" validator feature to come in a subsequent PR (https://github.com/keithw/wasm-tools/tree/atomic). This would provide the ability to validate an operator atomically, i.e. the validator state is unchanged if the operator is invalid.