Inconsistencies across multiple pages of instruction lists
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Stale
- Tech stack
- wasm
- Domain
- documentation
Research direction
Start by comparing the six linked WebAssembly specification instruction pages: Index of Instructions, Binary Format, Structure, Validation, Execution, and Text Format. Check the reported instruction names, opcode 0xBB, and category labels against one another and determine the authoritative forms. Done means the instruction lists and classifications are consistent across the referenced pages.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Hello, I'm beginning to study Wasm as a hobby. I think I've found some editorial bugs.
As a first step in learning, I wanted to know what kind of instructions Wasm has, so I searched and found wasm-ops. That chart was a great help, but I noticed it was a bit outdated, so I next tried to create a new chart.
Since I was at it, I thought I'd automate the table creation and started writing a script. But now, as a beginner, I'm a bit confused.
When I generated a table from the instruction list, I realized multiple name inconsistencies within the specification pages themselves.
I found such inconsistencies on (at least) three pages. I believe that each pages provide a comprehensive list of Wasm instructions.
The following are examples of contradiction. I'm not sure which one is correct, but could you fix the inconsistencies?
- ^1 contains
end(0x0B), but ^3 does not, and ^2 does not refer to it ininstr :: =definition - ^1 and ^3 contain
call_ref(0x14), but ^2 does not - ^1 contains instructions that end with
{name}_{numtype}_{sx}(likei32.trunc_f32_u), but others contain{name}_{sx}_{numtype}(i32.trunc_u_f32) with the same{name} - ^2 says
0xBBisf32.promote_f64but others say it'sf64.promote_f32 - [Update] ^2 and Text Format^6 categorizes
struct.*/array.*as "Reference Instructions," as the same asref.*, but ^3 categorizes them as a separate "Aggregate Instructions"- In addition, Validation^4 categorizes them as "Aggregate Reference Instructions" (another different name)
However, I don't believe the above is complete. For example, there seem to be at least three other pages titled "Instructions,"^4^6 but I haven't investigated those yet.
I would appreciate it if they could be corrected.
- Dominant language
- WebAssembly
- Stars
- 3.5k
- Forks
- 539
- Avg merge
- 2d 1h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 13
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.
More from WebAssembly/spec
-
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 68/100
WebAssembly/spec#2245 ·
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 45/100
WebAssembly/spec#2235 · 9 comments ·
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
WebAssembly/spec#2196 ·
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 48/100
WebAssembly/spec#2155 · 2 comments ·
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 45/100
WebAssembly/spec#2150 · 1 comment ·
All issues in WebAssembly/spec
Similar issues
-
content
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
GDQuest/learn-gdscript#1395 ·
-
rules
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 90/100
-
HttpClient
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
symfony/symfony-docs#23092 ·
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 90/100
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 95/100
huggingface/sentence-transformers#4074 ·