feedab1e
feedab1e
@sbc100 @binji you might want to take a look at this
> Wow, this is very impressive that you got all this to work @feedab1e. > > My main concern is how much we want to actually commit to being able...
> Wow, a gcc backend! Thats is exciting! Are you sure it wouldn't make sense to use the `.s` format there, like the one that llvm uses? I assume that...
The problem with `.s` for me is that I would be relying on what is essentially an implementation detail of LLVM, a format which is undocumented, and implementation of which...
> > The problem with `.s` for me is that I would be relying on what is essentially an implementation detail of LLVM, a format which is undocumented, and implementation...
> I've made half-hearted attempts to implement something like this in wasm-tools historically but the "known limitations" listed in the PR description here are mostly what stopped me, especially the...
> > Well, that documentation would be nice in any case, but I suspect that someone from LLVM have to do it first before I can consider adopting `.s`, and...
> > And yes, relocations are spliced into the data, but I think that's just the only reasonable way to do it, LLVM syntax or otherwise > > If somebody...
> > No and I don't even know what would that look like, with the current variety of real-world assembly syntaxes. AFAIK there isn't much baked in, and the output...
> > The "known limitations" part of this PR is more about WABT itself rather than the syntax. > > Oh! Never mind me then. In that case this is...