Andrew Scheidecker

I prototyped something similar to @binji's proposed syntax, but an issue I ran into is that it can express more information about the section ordering than the binary format. For...

If it is useful to express ordering constraints relative to virtual sections that may or may not be present in the binary module, then it must be worthwhile to encode...

> I don't think that follows. You shouldn't think of placements as a restrictive mechanism but a descriptive one. > > But more importantly, as you say, this has nothing...

> Adding to the runtime diversity: Wasmer intends to fully support Windows which, in my experience so far, has been much trickier than getting it working on Unix-like platforms. Symlinks...

I do hope that WASI can gradually support most of POSIX, including forking, signals, sockets, and shared memory. Maybe even `getcwd`! > I think there are conflicts between POSIX and...

In [this proposal](https://github.com/AndrewScheidecker/wasm-extended-name-section/), I'm using a "function label index space" to refer to labels from the binary name section. I wrote a rationale for using function label indices over binary...

It's true that it will be harder for a transform to avoid the need to transform the DWARF sections, but there *are* some useful transforms that don't change the instruction...

> Annotations needs to be introduced into text format, similar to LLVM's .ll approach. I don't think it will reasonable to preserve DWARF sections data as-is during round trip of...

> So far I had assumed that staying within bounds is the responsibility of the host, and that OOB access is simply UB. This is C after all. In this...

> Keep in mind that this is an embedder API, not an API that should be made accessible to untrusted client code. The embedder has to be part of TCB....