Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

List possible implementation limits #438

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Sep 20, 2023
Merged

List possible implementation limits #438

merged 5 commits into from
Sep 20, 2023

Conversation

rossberg
Copy link
Member

@rossberg rossberg commented Sep 20, 2023

Noticed that we still needed to extend those bullet lists in the appendix.

@rossberg rossberg mentioned this pull request Sep 20, 2023
53 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@titzer titzer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm with small comment

@@ -50,7 +53,8 @@ An implementation may impose restrictions on the following dimensions of a modul
* the size of a :ref:`structured control instruction <syntax-instr-control>`
* the number of :ref:`structured control instructions <syntax-instr-control>` in a :ref:`function <syntax-func>`
* the nesting depth of :ref:`structured control instructions <syntax-instr-control>`
* the number of :ref:`label indices <syntax-labelidx>` in a |brtable| instruction
* the number of :ref:`label indices <syntax-labelidx>` in a |BRTABLE| instruction
* the length of the array in a |ARRAYNEWFIXED| instruction
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

AFAICT this is also limited by the bytecode length, but I'm fine specifying it separately this way.

Do we have a limitation on the size of an initializer expression?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good point, added.

@rossberg rossberg merged commit 4ed4eb4 into main Sep 20, 2023
3 checks passed
@rossberg rossberg deleted the spec.limits branch September 20, 2023 21:32
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.

2 participants