WebAssembly / WebAssembly/spec
Minor errors in 3.0 binary format
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- WebAssembly
- Stars
- 3.5k
- Forks
- 539
- Avg merge
- 2d 1h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 13
Description
- The third (recursive) case of the binary definition of
sNshould havei:sinstead ofi:u
- 3.0: https://webassembly.github.io/spec/core/binary/values.html#integers
- 2.0 for comparison: https://www.w3.org/TR/wasm-core-2/#integers%E2%91%A4
- (arguable?) The module binary definition uses
*everywhere for all the section lists, but the typeid and code sections should have a distinguished arity to make in unambiguous that they must have the same number of entries as each other (while other sections are allowed to have different sizes) - 2.0 usedn.
- 3.0: https://webassembly.github.io/spec/core/binary/modules.html#binary-module
- 2.0 for comparison: https://www.w3.org/TR/wasm-core-2/#modules%E2%91%A0%E2%93%AA
These were found while hand-mechanising part of the binary format in Isabelle.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Read the 3.0 binary values and modules sections linked in the issue, comparing each with the corresponding 2.0 definitions. Verify the recursive sN production and the relationship between typeid and code section arities; done means the specification reflects the intended definitions and the wording is unambiguous.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- wasm
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 42/100