Bug 165718 - Wasm should support call_indirect
Summary: Wasm should support call_indirect
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New Bugs (show other bugs)
Version: WebKit Nightly Build
Hardware: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Keith Miller
URL:
Keywords: InRadar
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2016-12-09 22:08 PST by Keith Miller
Modified: 2016-12-09 23:59 PST (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Patch (41.77 KB, patch)
2016-12-09 22:21 PST, Keith Miller 		no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Patch for landing (44.32 KB, patch)
2016-12-09 22:26 PST, Keith Miller 		no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Patch for landing (44.28 KB, patch)
2016-12-09 22:38 PST, Keith Miller 		keith_miller: commit-queue+
Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Show Obsolete (2) View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Keith Miller 2016-12-09 22:08:45 PST 
Wasm should support call_indirect
Comment 1 Keith Miller 2016-12-09 22:21:53 PST 
Created attachment 296778 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 WebKit Commit Bot 2016-12-09 22:24:28 PST 
This patch modifies one of the wasm.json files. Please ensure that any changes in one have been mirrored to the other. You can find the wasm.json files at "Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/wasm.json" and "JSTests/wasm/wasm.json".
Comment 3 Keith Miller 2016-12-09 22:26:31 PST 
Created attachment 296779 [details]
Patch for landing
Comment 4 Keith Miller 2016-12-09 22:28:36 PST 
rdar://problem/29599153
Comment 5 Keith Miller 2016-12-09 22:38:39 PST 
Created attachment 296783 [details]
Patch for landing
Comment 6 Keith Miller 2016-12-09 23:13:25 PST 
Committed r209652: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/209652>
Comment 7 Saam Barati 2016-12-09 23:59:49 PST 
Comment on attachment 296783 [details]
Patch for landing

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=296783&action=review

> Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmB3IRGenerator.cpp:675
> +                jit.call(params[0].gpr());

Why is this correct? params[0] is sometimes the return value of the patchpoint.