Sam Clegg

Could you encode the is64 in the low bit of the base register?

@titzer, given there is a way to make it work by tagging the base register are you ok with close this out or mark as post-mvp? If you still want...

@lars-t-hansen what do you propose for the value of "index"? The string `u64` or `u32` maybe?

Can't this be done done today by specifying a memory size that is exactly a power of 2? In other words, what can the engine do with "pointers are 34bit"...

Ah.. I think I understand. Let me see if I got this right: specifying that engines are required to ignore the upper bits allows engines to use the masking trick...

Would this be useful for both wasm32 and wasm64? Would there be a potential performance hit for engines that don't currently use masking, e.g wasm32 engines that rely only in...

This doesn't seem like it has a lot of support. It also seems like it could be added by as followup proposal (IIUC it doesn't only relate to 64-bit memories...

I think the only conflict that the testsuite cares about is `test/core/binary.wast`

If its a useful feature we could have an option in wasm-ld that puts mangled names in the name section rather that human-readable demanded ones.

The information that we have in the linker and that later stages don't have is basically how to demangle symbols. Late stage tools like devtools don't now how to demangle...