-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
Add text format specification for Linking.md #258
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 13 commits
392a958
51db201
e505cb0
e314caf
c741bc4
ea16ade
a5f894e
d7ecb30
79c827e
9895551
c5270f7
1e66962
422f2c0
c4be34b
f01ca3a
41ddb22
6fab7ca
fd65da7
c058770
4fd3975
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -734,3 +734,279 @@ necessary for referencing such segments (e.g. in `data.drop` or `memory.init` | |
| instruction) do not yet exist. | ||
| - There is currently no support for table element segments, either active or | ||
| passive. | ||
|
|
||
| # Text format | ||
|
|
||
| The text format for linking metadata is intended for WAT consumers that wish to | ||
| emit relocatable object files, and WAT producers wish to emit human-readable | ||
| relocation metadata for later creation of a relocatable object file. | ||
|
feedab1e marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Relocations | ||
|
|
||
| Relocations are represented as WebAssembly annotations of the form | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Same here? Should we just use |
||
| ```wat | ||
| (@reloc <format> <method> <modifier> <symbol-reference> <addend>) | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Personally for syntax like this I like to try to avoid "extra layers of indirection" of a sort. Here one layer of indirection is the set of relocations themselves (e.g.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah, I specifically decided against that since then it wouldn't be possible to abbreviate the relocation via that predefinition mechanism (so,
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There is also an issue of Rectifying that error at the source would require me to patch LLVM in sync with this change, so like the other issue with
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Do you have a better idea for what to call
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. (By the way the history here is that prior to mulit-table there was only one table, so
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'd lean towards something like
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. (coincidentally this would align well with
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The idea of just
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Also, in terms of renaming things, in theory that can be done at any time right? The binary format of preexisting relocations isn't going to change. While work is "created" in the sense that LLVM should eventually update that's no breaking change in the sense that it's impossible to rename things, right? Given that, I personally like @feedab1e's idea of repurposing
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'd be fine with changing the name of A usage of a more general non-function table element would probably need one relocation for the table index and another for the element. So it seems the processing of the second reloc might need to be context-dependent in the same way you are proposing for instructions. |
||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| - `format` determines the resulting format of a relocation | ||
|
|
||
| |`<format>`| corresponding relocation constants | interpretation | | ||
| |----------|------------------------------------|---------------------| | ||
| |`i32` | `R_WASM_*_I32` | 4-byte [uint32] | | ||
| |`i64` | `R_WASM_*_I64` | 8-byte [uint64] | | ||
| |`leb` | `R_WASM_*_LEB` | 5-byte [varuint32] | | ||
| |`sleb` | `R_WASM_*_SLEB` | 5-byte [varint32] | | ||
| |`leb64` | `R_WASM_*_LEB64` | 10-byte [varuint64] | | ||
| |`sleb64` | `R_WASM_*_SLEB64` | 10-byte [varint64] | | ||
|
|
||
| - `method` describes the type of relocation, so what kind of symbol we are relocating against and how to interpret that symbol. | ||
|
|
||
| | `<method>` | symbol kind | corresponding relocation constants | interpretation | | ||
| |-------------|-------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | ||
| | `tag` | event* | `R_WASM_EVENT_INDEX_*` | Final WebAssembly event index | | ||
| | `table` | table* | `R_WASM_TABLE_NUMBER_*` | Final WebAssembly table index (index of a table, not into one) | | ||
| | `global` | global* | `R_WASM_GLOBAL_INDEX_*` | Final WebAssembly global index | | ||
| | `func` | function* | `R_WASM_FUNCTION_INDEX_*` | Final WebAssembly function index | | ||
| | `functable` | function | `R_WASM_TABLE_INDEX_*` | Index into the dynamic function table, used for taking address of functions | | ||
| | `codeseg` | function | `R_WASM_FUNCTION_OFFSET` | Offset into the function body from the start of the function | | ||
| | `codesec` | function | `R_WASM_SECTION_OFFSET` | Offset into the function section | | ||
| | `datasec` | data | `R_WASM_SECTION_OFFSET` | Offset into the data section | | ||
| | `customsec` | N/A | `R_WASM_SECTION_OFFSET` | Offset into a custom section | | ||
| | `data` | data | `R_WASM_MEMORY_ADDR_*` | WebAssembly linear memory address | | ||
|
|
||
| Symbol kinds marked with `*` are considered *primary*. | ||
|
|
||
| - `modifier` describes the additional attributes that a relocation might have. | ||
|
|
||
| | `<modifier>` | corresponding relocation constants | interpretation | | ||
| |--------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------| | ||
| | nothing | nothing | Normal relocation | | ||
| | `pic` | `R_WASM_*_LOCREL_*`, `R_WASM_*_REL_*` | Address relative to `env.__memory_base` or `env.__table_base`, used for dynamic linking | | ||
| | `tls` | `R_WASM_*_TLS*` | Address relative to `env.__tls_base`, used for thread-local storage | | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is there any reason not to reflect the entire list of relocation types like they are listed in the binary format and/or in llvm: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/WasmRelocs.def i.e. why create this new concept of a base type + a modifier that doesn't exist elsewhere yet? Why not just use Maybe this new method/format/modifier concept could be added more globally later once the initial version of the text format is added? But for v1 it seems like it would make sense to simply mirror the existing binary format enum.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This was covered extensively in #258 (comment), and @alexcrichton expressed support for it here, but in short, that way there wouldn't be an option to elide parts of the relocation annotation (i.e. defaulting and predefinig wouldn't work), so all relocations would be incredibly verbose (for example,
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think I don't see how specifying the full relocation type (e.g using This seem like two orthogonal decisions, but I get that I must be missing something:
I'm also not sure that reducing verbosity needs to be the highest priority since the plan is for this format to be mostly machine read and machine written, right?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Apart form fully elidable relocations, other types of relocations exist, like in memory (
Well, it needs to be human-readable, too, since it's a text format and humans are expected to read that too, like they usually read assembly, and likewise human-writable.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The relocation type names are not indented to be LLVM specific. The list of 20 relocation types, along with their ffull names, are listed above in this very document. This is designed to mirror the ELF relocation types that are defined in the ELF header and not specific to either LLVM or GCC but are using in both place. I think it might be a good idea to reflect this precisely in text for, so we can avoid having two different ways to specify things.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. To me it's more of a preference of per-relocation/symbol annotations over a top-level annotation. I agree that either system would work alright, and the main concern that I can think of is printing an wasm object file (binary-to-text) where it feels more natural to print I'd naively expect that with I should also be clear that I'm happy to be overruled here. IMO text-format design is something that's worth bikeshedding but not endlessly, so I wouldn't want to hold up anything on my own behalf too much
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I’m still not sure there’s much value in either making all symbols/relocs explicit or having a toplevel annotation, since neither actually guarantee that an object file is produced. So the only effect of such an annotation would be to artificially restrict files that can be relocatable. Currently, any valid WASM module as well as any valid WAT module can be transformed into an object file and back by merely attaching or stripping the linking information. It's a nice property and I would like to keep it, especially since there is nothing stopping us from it. If we really really want something (advisory) that says which features are intended to be used with which WAT files, then perhaps we should have a general annotation that applies to all features, not just linking. That annotation, if decided upon, could in principle augment assembler flags same way as
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There's also a separate concern of how explicit relocation annotations will fit in with other metadata that isn't aware of linking, like code metadata. Currently it's easy, code metadata info needs a If explicit relocations are mandated, then the standardized syntax for code metadata would simply no longer work, just like every annotation-based metadata feature that isn't explicitly aware of relocations.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This might come down to how I'm approaching this from a different perspective (I think) than you might be. I'm thinking about this from a tooling perspective of a text-to-binary or binary-to-text transform. I suspect you're coming from the direction of producing-the-text and/or reading-the-text (please correct me though!). I'm concerned with "the binary should have one canonical text form and vice versa" and I'm not interested in auto-injecting Not sure if that helps, but figured I'd write down how my perspective may be a bit different.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, from the transform PoV, mandating the annotations would actually break that property, since there would be binary object files that can no longer be converted to text (#258 (comment)), so our hands are tied, and we have to make this work with (mandatory) elision, or we have to redesign every other annotation to accommodate linking. Elision does not break the round-trip requirement either, since elided relocations have a unique and mandatory representation in a valid binary object file, and vice versa |
||
|
|
||
| - `addend` describes the additional components of a relocation. | ||
|
|
||
| | `<addend>` | interpretation | condition | | ||
| |--------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | ||
| | nothing | Zero addend | always | | ||
| | `+<integer>` | Positive byte offset | `method` allows addend | | ||
| | `-<integer>` | Negative byte offset | `method` allows addend and `format` is signed | | ||
| | `<labeluse>` | Byte offest to label | `method` is either `codeseg` or `*sec` | | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What does
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Hm ok I think I see why I was pretty confused by this. Speaking of overloaded terminology... When I read "label" here I thought that this was referring to wasm block labels. (e.g. I was also a little confused at this where the addend in I think basically I'm confused about what this is. Do you have an example of where this would be used?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Well, those aren't described in trunk, but are described here: https://github.com/feedab1e/tool-conventions/blob/main/Linking.md#labels. You stick this label into the instruction stream, and whenever that label is used as an addend, it will point to that place in the instruction stream. (module
(func $foo (param) (result)
nop
(@sym.label $between_nops)
nop)
(@custom "debug_whatever"
(;suppose this would represent a DWARF code address;)
"\00\00\00\00\00" (@reloc leb codesec $foo $between_nops)))
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Aha ok I see! Two thoughts then. Maybe Also, in terms of ambiguity in parsing, what I was worried about was something like
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think both forms are valid (I assume they are both generated by llvm today). Its up to the compiler to perform these optimizations (constant folding?) but we shouldn't mandate it one or the other here.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. IIRC there are some cases where this folds cannot always be performed. I vaguely remember something about the There was some recent work in llvm to make more use of the offset: llvm/llvm-project#145829
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, this is only concerning WAT notation for the instructions, no codegen changes. Relocation on a A potential issue would be in that this number is still specified in the main binary, so currently
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Oh I see, you are proposing a shorthand where the Seems like maybe too clever, at least for v1? Better to keep it simple for the first iteration, and they add sugar/simplification/possible-elision once we have v1 working?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Sure, that also would work. |
||
|
|
||
| - `symbol` describes the symbol against which to perform relocation. | ||
| - For `funcsec` relocation method, this is the function id, so that if the | ||
| addend is zero, the relocation points to the first instruction of that | ||
| function. | ||
| - For `datasec` relocation method, this is the data segment id, so that if | ||
| the addend is zero, the relocation points to the first byte of data in that | ||
| segment. | ||
| - For `customsec` relocation method, this is the name of the custom section, | ||
| so that if the addend is zero, the relocation points to the first byte of | ||
| data in that segment. | ||
|
feedab1e marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
| - For other relocation methods, this denotes the symbol in the scope of that | ||
| symbol kind. | ||
|
Comment on lines
+801
to
+809
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. While syntactically it's nice to reuse the same
I don't really know what the best option is myself, but I'm overall a bit worried about the disconnect between the syntax proposed here and the binary format having its own index space.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The current state of identifiers is desribed here: #258 (comment), I am writing a section in the doc describing this.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I fear that the overloaded terminology may be thwarting here again, so I'll outline what I'm thinking with an example: (module
(func $foo (@sym $bar) (result i32)
call $foo (@reloc $bar)
)
)Should this work? Here from a pure wasm text format point of view, ignoring annotations, Does that match your understanding? Or are you thinking something different?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, that's correct. |
||
|
|
||
| The relocation type is looked up from the combination of `format`, `method`, | ||
| and `modifier`. If no relocation type exists, an error is raised. | ||
|
|
||
| If a component of a relocation is predetermined, it must be skipped in the | ||
| annotation text. | ||
|
|
||
| If a component of a relocation is defaulted, it may be skipped in the | ||
| annotation text. | ||
|
|
||
| For example, a relocation into the function table by the index of `$foo` with a | ||
| predetermined `format` would look like following: | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (@reloc functable $foo) | ||
| ``` | ||
| If all components of a relocation annotation are skipped, the annotation may be | ||
| omitted. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Instruction relocations | ||
|
|
||
| For every usage of `typeidx`, `funcidx`, `globalidx`, `tagidx`, a relocation | ||
| annotation is added afterwards, with `format` predefined as `leb`, `method` | ||
| predefined as the *primary* method for that type, and `symbol` defaulted as the | ||
| *primary* symbol of that `idx` | ||
|
|
||
| - For the `i32.const` instruction, a relocation annotation is added after the | ||
| integer literal operand, with `format` predefined as `sleb`, and `method` is | ||
| allowed to be either `data` or `functable`. | ||
| - For the `i64.const` instruction, a relocation annotation is added after the | ||
| integer literal operand, with `format` predefined as `sleb64`, and `method` | ||
| is allowed to be either `data` or `functable`. | ||
| - For the `i{32,64}.{load,store}*` instructions, a relocation annotation is | ||
| added after the offset operand, with `format` predefined as `leb` if the | ||
| *memory* being referenced is 32-bit, and `leb64` otherwise, and `method` | ||
| predefined as `data`. | ||
|
feedab1e marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Data relocations | ||
|
|
||
| In data segments, relocation annotations can be interleaved into the data | ||
| string sequence. When that happens, relocations are situated after the last | ||
| byte of the value being relocated. | ||
|
|
||
| For example, relocation of a 32-bit function pointer `$foo` and a 32-bit | ||
| reference to a data symbol `$bar` into the data segment of size 8 would look | ||
| like following: | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (data (i32.const 0) "\00\00\00\00" (@reloc i32 functbl $foo) "\00\00\00\00" (@reloc i32 data $bar)) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ## Symbols | ||
|
|
||
| Symbols are represented as WebAssembly annotations of the form | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (@sym <name> <qualifier>*) | ||
| ``` | ||
| Data imports represented as WebAssembly annotations of the form | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (@sym.import.data <name> <qualifier>*) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| - `name` is the symbol name written as WebAssembly `id`, it is the name by | ||
| which relocation annotations reference the symbol. If it is not present, the | ||
| symbol is considered *primary* symbol for that WebAssembly object, its name | ||
| is taken from the related object | ||
| - There may only be one primary symbol for each WebAssembly object. | ||
| - If a symbol is not associated with an object, it may not be the primary | ||
| symbol. | ||
|
|
||
| - `qualifier` is one of the allowed qualifiers on a symbol declaration. | ||
| Qualifiers may not repeat. | ||
|
|
||
| | `<qualifier>` | effect | | ||
| |---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | ||
| | `binding=<binding>` | sets symbol flags according to `<binding>` | | ||
| | `visibility=<visibility>` | sets symbol flags according to `<visibility>` | | ||
| | `retain` | sets `WASM_SYM_NO_STRIP` symbol flag | | ||
| | `thread_local` | sets `WASM_SYM_TLS` symbol flag | | ||
|
feedab1e marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
| | `size=<int>` | sets symbol's `size` appropriately | | ||
| | `offset=<int>` | sets `WASM_SYM_ABSOLUTE` symbol flag, sets symbol's `offset` appropriately | | ||
| | `name=<string>` | sets `WASM_SYM_EXPLICIT_NAME` symbol flag, sets symbol's `name_len`, `name_data` appropriately | | ||
| | `priority=<int>` | adds symbol to `WASM_INIT_FUNCS` section with the given priority | | ||
|
alexcrichton marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
| | `comdat=<id>` | adds symbol to a `comdat` with the given id | | ||
|
alexcrichton marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
|
|
||
| | `<binding>` | flag | | ||
| |-------------|--------------------------| | ||
| | `global` | 0 | | ||
| | `local` | `WASM_SYM_BINDING_LOCAL` | | ||
| | `weak` | `WASM_SYM_BINDING_WEAK` | | ||
|
|
||
| | `<visibility>` | flag | | ||
| |----------------|------------------------------| | ||
| | `default` | | | ||
| | `hidden` | `WASM_SYM_VISIBILITY_HIDDEN` | | ||
|
|
||
| Shorthands may be used in place of full qualifiers: | ||
|
|
||
| | shorthand | resulting qualifier | | ||
| |-----------|---------------------| | ||
| | `hidden` | `visibility=hidden` | | ||
| | `local` | `binding=local` | | ||
| | `weak` | `binding=weak` | | ||
|
feedab1e marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
|
|
||
| - The `priority` qualifier may only be applied to function symbols. | ||
| - The `size` and `offset` qualifiers may only be applied to data symbols. | ||
| - The `size` and `name` qualifiers must be applied to data symbols. | ||
| - The `name` qualifier must be applied to data imports. | ||
|
|
||
| If all components of a symbol annotation are skipped, the annotation may be | ||
| omitted. | ||
|
|
||
| ### WebAssembly object symbols | ||
|
|
||
| For symbols related to WebAssembly objects, the symbol annotation sequence | ||
| occurs after the optional `id` of the declaration. | ||
|
|
||
| For example, the following code: | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (import "env" "foo" (func (@sym $a retain name="a") (@sym $b hidden name="b") (param) (result))) | ||
| ``` | ||
| declares 3 symbols: one primary symbol with the name of the index of the | ||
| function, one symbol with the name `$a`, and one symbol with the name `$b`. | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can you clarify what the "primary symbol" is here? As it relates to linking.md I would expect this to introduce 2 symbols, only
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This would probably need an explanation in the document. First thing I want to mention is that for each relocatable WebAssembly object identifier context, there exists a corresponding identifier context for symbols, and every time a name is used in a So in WABT there already exists an option to generate relocatable binaries, where WABT implicitly assigns a symbol for each relocatable WebAssembly object (so, functions, objects, tables, and tags), and whenever that object is used, a relocation to its symbol is produced. This allows creating a subset of relocatable binaries without needing to specify any annotations at all. However, in the actual linking spec, multiple symbols can exist per relocatable WebAssembly object, which breaks WABT's assumptions about uniqueness of symbols. To reconcile this, I introduced the notion of a primary symbol, which means basically "The symbol we use by default if no relocation annotation is specified". It inherits the name of the object, and if one wants to specify special properties for that symbol, they would write a
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need some way here to disambiguate "object". In the context of linking this has an assumed meaning. Perhaps "element"?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Well, I used entity before I saw object used in the same context in the spec, so if we don't like object as a term, I'd propose using that. The problem with element is that there is a WebAssembly meaning behind this term, so we can't use it either.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. entity sounds better than object to me yes. Naming is hard.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. You'll have to forgive me if these questions I'm raising seem naive. I am not intimately familiar with the One thing I've never understood is how symbols in the linker-sense related to the name section in the text-format sense. For example is the symbol of Another observation/thought, related to the discussion below, is that I would be surprised at the ability to omit
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I tend to agree with @alexcrichton here (assuming I understand the above correctly). I think we should perhaps not allow the omitting the annotations. Maybe we just require them in all cases, at least initially for the first draft. That way, the contents of the linker section and symbol table much more obviously corresponds 1-to-1 with the annotations in the wat. if we later decide it really is too verbose we could always add something later, some way to enable eliding of annotations. I can imagine several ways to opt into that more magical behaviour, but perhaps we should start with a the simpler, explicit version?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My understanding is that the linking spec is entirely unaware of the
Sure, I can disable omission for just
The main thing I'm concerned about is that that will still break WABT users that relied on this magic, but on the other hand I can't imagine that that many people relied on that feature in the first place, so it's probably fine.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wouldn't worry about that. The Also, if we want
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, probably, then I think And in terms of wording, that would be something like That said, I would still strongly advise against omitting |
||
|
|
||
| ### Data symbols | ||
|
|
||
| Data symbol annotations can be interleaved into the data string sequence. | ||
| When that happens, relocations are situated before the first byte of the value | ||
| being defined. | ||
|
|
||
| For example, a declaration of a 32-bit global with the name `$foo` and linkage | ||
| name "foo" would look like following: | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (data (i32.const 0) (@sym $foo name="foo" size=4) "\00\00\00\00") | ||
|
feedab1e marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
feedab1e marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Data imports | ||
|
|
||
| Data imports occur in the same place as module fields. Data imports are always | ||
| situated before data symbols. | ||
|
|
||
| ## COMDATs | ||
|
|
||
| COMDATs are represented as WebAssembly annotations of the form | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (@comdat <id> <string>) | ||
| ``` | ||
| where `id` is the WebAssembly name of the COMDAT, and `<string>` is `name_len` | ||
| and `name_str` of the `comdat`. | ||
|
|
||
| COMDAT declarations occur in the same place as module fields. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Labels | ||
|
|
||
| For some relocation types, an offset into a section/function is necessary. For | ||
| these cases, labels exsist. | ||
| Labels are represented as WebAssembly annotations of the form | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (@sym.label <id>) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Function labels | ||
| Function labels occur in the same place as instructions. | ||
| A label always denotes the first byte of the next instruction, or the byte | ||
| after the end of the function's instruction stream, if there isn't a next | ||
| instruction. | ||
|
|
||
| Function label names are local to the function in which they occur. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Data labels | ||
| Data labels can be interleaved into the data string sequence. | ||
| When that happens, relocations are situated after the last byte of the value | ||
| being relocated. | ||
|
|
||
| Data label names are local to the data segment in which they occur. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Custom labels | ||
| Custom labels can be interleaved into the data string sequence. | ||
| When that happens, relocations are situated after the last byte of the value | ||
| being relocated. | ||
|
|
||
| Custom label names are local to the custom section in which they occur. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Data segment flags | ||
| Data segment flags are represented as WebAssembly annotations of the form | ||
| ```wat | ||
| (@sym.segment <qualifier>*) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| - `qualifier` is one of the allowed qualifiers on a data segment declaration. | ||
| Qualifiers may not repeat. | ||
|
|
||
| | `<qualifier>` | effect | | ||
| |-----------------|------------------------------------------------------| | ||
| | `align=<int>` | sets segment's `alignment` appropriately | | ||
| | `name=<string>` | sets segment's `name_len`, `name_data` appropriately | | ||
| | `strings` | sets `WASM_SEGMENT_FLAG_STRINGS` segment flag | | ||
| | `thread_local` | sets `WASM_SEGMENT_FLAG_TLS` segment flag | | ||
| | `retain` | sets `WASM_SEG_FLAG_RETAIN` segment flag | | ||
|
|
||
| If `align` is not specified, it is given a default value of 1. | ||
| If `name` is not specified, it is given an empty default value. | ||
|
|
||
| If all components of segment flags are skipped, the annotation may be omitted. | ||
|
|
||
| Data segment annotation occurs after the optional `id` of the data segment | ||
| declaration. | ||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.