[PATCH] D141103: [WebAssembly] Ensure 'end_function' in functions

Mon Jan 9 13:41:07 PST 2023

asb added a comment.

In D141103#4037228 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D141103#4037228>, @aheejin wrote:

> I'm not very familiar with the history with which our assembly format has evolved. I also wonder if we really need to `.functype` directives. (The 'before label' one seems to be alowed to be omitted, but in normal circumstances it is not) If we mandate the `.functype` directive before a function label, can we not have the second `.functype` after a function label? Do we actually need the second one? Maybe @aardappel can shed some light on this, even though I'm not sure if he's still following this repo.
>
> The reason I started working on this was just that I randomly grabbed an existing bug in llvm-project repo, thinking it looked very easy to fix.. But it turned out there could be many issues we can consider about deciding what our format should be. But at the same time, as @asb said, I don't know whether someone is actually relying on this, and we didn't hear many complaints about this anyway (other than the bug this CL fixes, which was about a invalid .s file), so I'm not sure if we need to invest much time on this at this point..

Yes, landing this change as-is is definitely the right path. My thought re .functype was Just something to keep in mind if anyone looks at further changes in the future.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D141103/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D141103