Shu-yu Guo

Thanks for checking, that sounds about right.

Having stuff in tree is easier than having to sync another repo for V8, but I don't really have strong opinions here. Ideally we should deduplicate `parseTestRecord.py`. The copy inside...

Drive-by chiming in with my 2c. > First, I'm expecting that we'll be using this utility to test semantics which modify the data in the buffer. If that's right, then...

> However, I am not certain this will be possible for the majority of cases — consider .slice, where we might want to observe some cases throwing, for instance where...

> Other than the callback vs. utility approach, it seems the other outstanding question is about shared vs. separate backing buffers, and it appears that there is no universally applicable...

My reading of that test agrees with @marjakh's reading. Since `result` is the result of calling `TypedArray.prototype.map`, it's a new TA backed by a different buffer. The comparison to `[0,...

@rossberg My understanding is there's discussion on whether it's okay for the wasm spec to depend on JS proposals that aren't yet merged into ecma262. The status quo is no,...

@conrad-watt Could you give me an overview of what needs changing on the threads proposal to account for resizable buffers? (Or, if I'm really feeling lucky, are you up for...

@conrad-watt 2 weeks sgtm! I'm getting ready to ask for Stage 4 for resizable buffers so crossing my t's and dotting my i's.

> Ok, I have a fresh version of the threads specification now living in a [branch](https://github.com/WebAssembly/threads/tree/upstream-rebuild). @syg I'll spend a few days looking at growable SharedArrayBuffer and see what I...