Do we need to escape names in the names section? [not for landing] #2261
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
The related PR can be found at #1646 . You also mentioned there, that the approach seems necessary as (call "quoted") is not valid wat. Also |
|
Thanks @yurydelendik! I remember now. Yeah, it does seem necessary, as you said back then and now :) Sadly it is making another feature I need (asyncify lists) harder... Closing this, I'll figure something out. |
kripken
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2019
The blacklist means "functions here are to be ignored and not instrumented, we can assume they never unwind." The whitelist means "only these functions, and no others, can unwind." I had hoped such lists would not be necessary, since Asyncify's overhead is much smaller than the old Asyncify and Emterpreter, but as projects have noticed, the overhead to size and speed is still significant. The lists give power users a way to reduce any unnecessary overhead. A slightly tricky thing is escaping of names: we escape names from the names section (see #2261 #1646). The lists arrive in human-readable format, so we escape them before comparing to the internal escaped names. To enable that I refactored wasm-binary a little bit to provide the escaping logic, cc @yurydelendik If both lists are specified, an error is shown (since that is meaningless). If a name appears in a list that is not in the module, we show a warning, which will hopefully help people debug typos etc. I had hoped to make this an error, but the problem is that due to inlining etc. a single list will not always work for both unoptimized and optimized builds (a function may vanish when optimizing, due to duplicate function elimination or inlining). Fixes #2218.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
@yurydelendik - see the code here. I don't see any tests fail with this change (here or in emscripten) which removes the escaping.
The benefit to the change is the names look normal in the wast ("foo()" instead of "foo\20\28"). This also helps with features like an asyncify whitelist/blacklist, which need to use internal function names.
What is the purpose of the escaping? I don't fully understand why it's there.