WebAssembly / WebAssembly/threads
Naming convention for wait/notify instructions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- WebAssembly
- Stars
- 767
- Forks
- 54
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
The threads proposal as is is limited to shared memories, but we probably want to generalise the language to other shared entities eventually, e.g., globals or tables. At that point, it might be conceivable that we may want to introduce not just atomic get/set for those, but also wait/notify instructions.
However, the current naming scheme for wait/notify instructions does not make explicit that they are operating on a memory. In the interest of forward compatibility, should we fix that? It might also be nice for improved consistency with other memory instructions.
Bikeshedding possibilities:
memory.atomic.notify,i32.memory.atomic.waitmemory.atomic.notify,memory.i32.atomic.waitmemory.atomic.notify,memory.atomic.wait32
Admittedly, neither pair is particularly pretty. Thoughts?
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
Start by reading the threads proposal context and the existing wait/notify instruction naming. Compare the naming alternatives listed in this issue with the conventions for other memory instructions. Done means the proposal has a decided, forward-compatible naming scheme rather than an unresolved set of options.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- wasm
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100