Andreas Rossberg

I still stand by what I [said](https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues/646#issuecomment-357342099) in the previous discussion that @keithw linked to: there is no obvious way to decide what operations should have callbacks, once you think...

I agree this is bogus. Fig. 1 doesn't even make sense: Why is the index of an individual function set to the number of imported functions? Wouldn't that imply that...

Ah, thanks @Ms2ger, that makes sense. I still wonder why we need this at all, though, see my second question.

No, this should not equate -0 and +0, since it's only supposed to include values that are in the image of the ToJSValue for an i31. The correct check should...

Yeah, that would also be my literal interpretation of what's written. I think the text should be fixed, but maybe other folks have a different opinion?

Thanks for pointing out these bugs. Quick reply to some of your points: > * [1](#user-content-fn-1-49bbed33d8ca77d33d51dbda20dfac35) contains `end` (0x0B), but [3](#user-content-fn-3-49bbed33d8ca77d33d51dbda20dfac35) does not, and [2](#user-content-fn-2-49bbed33d8ca77d33d51dbda20dfac35) does not refer to it...

Most of the above should be fixed now, except for the naming inconsistencies in conversion instructions. These will be fixed automatically once we have ported the instruction index to SpecTec.

This looks good! I'm curious to see how far this would take us and what people could do with it. I have one question and two naming nits: - Where...

> 3. I think we should have a `func.can_new` instruction which returns `i32.const 1` when a JIT is present at runtime, and spec `func.new` to always validate but trap (or...

I agree with @titzer that finding a way to represent this zoo in terms of existing memory instructions is more economic and at least an attractive option to consider. I...