Ben Smith

No, but you can use site `site:webassembly.org` (or similar) in search engines for this.

Yes, it seems this package is too old. I'm not sure what to recommend instead, but @kripken @dschuff @jgravelle-google probably do.

Perhaps we should provide a "safer" shim around the underlying C-API for these cases? At least in the case of checking mutability in `wasm_global_set` (and probably others) we can do...

As a (maybe interesting) side point: when I recently rewrote the wabt interpreter API, I did this for much of the API. See, for example, the [Table Object](https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt/blob/master/src/interp/interp.h#L739-L756), providing a...

> I should also point out that checks like verifying the type of a value passed to global_set or table_set aren't even possible in general. If that's true, then how...

I don't think it's necessary to patch v8 anymore, it has support upstream for the wasm-c-api.

Perhaps we can leave enough space for a `v128` type, and rely on a pointer to allocated memory for anything larger that comes along. That would waste a lot of...

After some more discussion: rather than encoding the scale as a shift (which can only represent powers of 2), you can encode a value using a format similar to IEEE...

Yeah, that's a good point. I thought there was a reason we didn't do this way back when :-) We could consider specifying wrapping behavior for this -- though it...

> Wrapping or non-determinism definitely sound worse Agreed, though it's also a bit unsatisfying to limit functionality of wasm based on a specific optimization that some implementations might never use....