Commit Graph

10 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Andreas Haas
a99423c389 Revert "[test] Refactor assertPromiseResult"
This reverts commit 361bb1a047.

Reason for revert: See https://crbug.com/v8/6981

BUG=v8:6981

Original change's description:
> [test] Refactor assertPromiseResult
>
> This patch introduces assertPromiseFulfills and assertPromiseFulfills as
> a replacement for assertPromiseResult because it’s more JavaScript-y.
>
> BUG=v8:6921
> R=ahaas@chromium.org
>
> Also-By: ahaas@chromium.org
> Change-Id: I2f865dba3992ddf3b58987bf0b376d143edb5c31
> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/718746
> Commit-Queue: Andreas Haas <ahaas@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Haas <ahaas@chromium.org>
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#48578}

Change-Id: Ie760d2422451f16acc616aae001fe9fd18bf5cd4
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/738249
Reviewed-by: Clemens Hammacher <clemensh@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Andreas Haas <ahaas@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#48936}
2017-10-25 14:42:25 +00:00
Mathias Bynens
361bb1a047 [test] Refactor assertPromiseResult
This patch introduces assertPromiseFulfills and assertPromiseFulfills as
a replacement for assertPromiseResult because it’s more JavaScript-y.

BUG=v8:6921
R=ahaas@chromium.org

Also-By: ahaas@chromium.org
Change-Id: I2f865dba3992ddf3b58987bf0b376d143edb5c31
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/718746
Commit-Queue: Andreas Haas <ahaas@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Haas <ahaas@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#48578}
2017-10-16 08:39:15 +00:00
mtrofin
71cf4890d0 [wasm] instantiate expressed in terms of compile
Today, the semantics of:

WebAssembly.instantiate

and

WebAssembly.compile().then(new WebAssemblyInstance)

are subtly different, to the point where attempting the proposed
change uncovered bugs.

In the future, it's possible that .instantiate actually have different
semantics - if we pre-specialized to the provided ffi, for example.
Right now that's not the case.

This CL:
- gets our implementation closer to what developers may write using
the compile -> new Instance alternative, in particular wrt promise
creation. By reusing code paths, we uncover more bugs, and keep
maintenance cost lower.

- it gives us the response-based WebAssembly.instantiate implicitly.
Otherwise, we'd need that same implementation on the blink side. The
negative is maintenance: imagine if the bugs I mentioned could only be
found when running in Blink.

BUG=chromium:697028

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2806073002
Cr-Original-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#44592}
Committed: 7829af3275
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2806073002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#44669}
2017-04-18 01:31:16 +00:00
hablich
d3f1d5c50c Revert of [wasm] instantiate expressed in terms of compile (patchset #6 id:140001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2806073002/ )
Reason for revert:
Roll blocker: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=710824

Original issue's description:
> [wasm] instantiate expressed in terms of compile
>
> Today, the semantics of:
>
> WebAssembly.instantiate
>
> and
>
> WebAssembly.compile().then(new WebAssemblyInstance)
>
> are subtly different, to the point where attempting the proposed
> change uncovered bugs.
>
> In the future, it's possible that .instantiate actually have different
> semantics - if we pre-specialized to the provided ffi, for example.
> Right now that's not the case.
>
> This CL:
> - gets our implementation closer to what developers may write using
> the compile -> new Instance alternative, in particular wrt promise
> creation. By reusing code paths, we uncover more bugs, and keep
> maintenance cost lower.
>
> - it gives us the response-based WebAssembly.instantiate implicitly.
> Otherwise, we'd need that same implementation on the blink side. The
> negative is maintenance: imagine if the bugs I mentioned could only be
> found when running in Blink.
>
> BUG=chromium:697028
>
> Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2806073002
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#44592}
> Committed: 7829af3275

TBR=bradnelson@chromium.org,ahaas@chromium.org,adamk@chromium.org,mtrofin@chromium.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=chromium:697028

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2810203002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#44614}
2017-04-12 13:27:56 +00:00
mtrofin
7829af3275 [wasm] instantiate expressed in terms of compile
Today, the semantics of:

WebAssembly.instantiate

and

WebAssembly.compile().then(new WebAssemblyInstance)

are subtly different, to the point where attempting the proposed
change uncovered bugs.

In the future, it's possible that .instantiate actually have different
semantics - if we pre-specialized to the provided ffi, for example.
Right now that's not the case.

This CL:
- gets our implementation closer to what developers may write using
the compile -> new Instance alternative, in particular wrt promise
creation. By reusing code paths, we uncover more bugs, and keep
maintenance cost lower.

- it gives us the response-based WebAssembly.instantiate implicitly.
Otherwise, we'd need that same implementation on the blink side. The
negative is maintenance: imagine if the bugs I mentioned could only be
found when running in Blink.

BUG=chromium:697028

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2806073002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#44592}
2017-04-12 00:01:04 +00:00
titzer
7ed3c4d791 [wasm] Remove non-standard kExprI8Const bytecode
R=clemensh@chromium.org
BUG=

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2595733003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#42141}
2017-01-09 13:57:26 +00:00
titzer
ee03b7217b [wasm] Binary 11: Bump module version to 0xB.
[wasm] Binary 11: Swap the order of section name / section length.
[wasm] Binary 11: Shorter section names.
[wasm] Binary 11: Add a prefix for function type declarations.
[wasm] Binary 11: Function types encoded as pcount, p*, rcount, r*
[wasm] Fix numeric names for functions.

R=rossberg@chromium.org,jfb@chromium.org,ahaas@chromium.org
BUG=chromium:575167
LOG=Y

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/1896863003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35897}
2016-04-29 09:40:24 +00:00
titzer
c38cd1698b [wasm] Use the JavaScript WasmModuleBuilder utility in JS tests.
R=ahaas@chromium.org,binji@chromium.org
BUG=

Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1770913002

Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#34559}
2016-03-07 19:34:29 +00:00
titzer
06241221a6 [wasm] Add a magic word and a version number to the binary.
R=binji@chromium.org,jfb@chromium.org
BUG=

Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1740373002

Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#34346}
2016-02-28 00:37:29 +00:00
bradnelson
255f4507ec Drop the compileRun + asmCompileRun methods from wasm.
Now that we have full fledged module instantiation,
keeping alive a second interface seems clunky.

Droping it and switching the tests.

BUG= https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=4203
TEST=test-asm-validator,asm-wasm,other wasm
R=titzer@chromium.org,aseemgarg@chromium.org
LOG=N

Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1660083002

Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33700}
2016-02-03 10:16:22 +00:00