Naming convention for wait/notify instructions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100
- Issue type
- Feature
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Activity status
- Stale
- Tech stack
- wasm
- Domain
- compilers
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.
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?
- Dominant language
- WebAssembly
- Stars
- 767
- Forks
- 54
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
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/threads
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
WebAssembly/threads#254 ·
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 30/100
WebAssembly/threads#253 · 6 comments ·
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
WebAssembly/threads#245 · 1 reaction ·
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
WebAssembly/threads#240 ·
-
Branch renaming Open
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 20/100
WebAssembly/threads#237 ·
All issues in WebAssembly/threads
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
objectionary/eo#8923 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
Coarray integration tests carry no LABELS, so run_tests.py silently skips them under every backend Opencoarray
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
internal.h中，漏掉了1个定义。 Open
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 95/100