Andreas Rossberg

@conrad-watt: > I think the concerns about the "syntactic definition of reachability" are overstated. Not really. We actually had lengthy and heated discussions about the details of that at the...

@conrad-watt: > My point is that all implementations have converged around a set of instructions which, at validation time, must produce PolyStack [] as an output type. It is precisely...

@fitzgen: > Probably ~half the tricky fuzz bugs we've found in the wasmparser crate's validator (which powers wasmtime, cranelift, and aarch64 spidermonkey) and in cranelift's wasm-to-ir translator involve unreachable code...

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the context of this renaming, and why is it needed? (AFAICT, all the GH repos I've been contributing to use `master`.)

I see, thanks!

Isn't "losing information" the defining property of subtyping? You can argue that there should be less subtyping, but not that subtyping should not lose information.

Some browser vendors raised concerns at the time against allowing unvalidated code. I believe there were fears that it could become part of a potential attack vector, which is a...

We do not have anything like "dated releases", I'm afraid, as the spec is supposed to be a "live" document. So such a history would technically be no different from...

Yeah, I understand the dilemma. The CG decided to adopt the "live" document approach. Personally, I think having a proper version history with frequent enough releases would be valuable. But...

Having this makes sense, although the spec repo would be the more appropriate place for it, especially so that we can update it along with the spec itself. Also, I...