chore(compiler): Update binaryen.ml to v0.20.1 #1599
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
phated
force-pushed
the
phated/binaryen-110
branch
from
d0a767d
to
575745b
Compare
phated
changed the title
phated
requested review from
ospencer,
peblair and
marcusroberts
as code owners
phated
force-pushed
the
phated/binaryen-110
branch
from
c35cdc4
to
73469fe
Compare
phated
force-pushed
the
phated/binaryen-110
branch
from
73469fe
to
278d5d2
Compare
phated
commented
Apr 23, 2023
This was referenced Apr 26, 2023
phated
force-pushed
the
phated/binaryen-110
branch
from
b251260
to
76e400b
Compare
ospencer
approved these changes
Apr 27, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This updates to binaryen 110 using our binaryen.ml bindings v0.20.1 - the big change is that binaryen requires all APIs to use an internal memory name when interacting with memories. This is to support multi-memory, I believe. However, we found a bunch of problems and/or bugs with their implementation that we need to raise upstream.
This currently has workarounds for the issues but relies on us dropping the js-runner in #1585. It also is built upon my cleanup in #1598