WIP: Add initial syscall/js.copyBytesToJS support #702
Conversation
It's working in initial testing, but could likely be improved somewhat. :)
|
Any chance of an automated test that exercises this? |
|
Good idea. Probably best to wait a few days, to see if it works ok with the further WebGL stuff. There's every chance it'll need tweaking/adjusting (etc). 😉 |
justinclift
changed the title
| // Originally copied from upstream Go project, then modified: | ||
| // https://github.com/golang/go/blob/3f995c3f3b43033013013e6c7ccc93a9b1411ca9/misc/wasm/wasm_exec.js#L404-L416 | ||
| // param4 and param5 (below) are likely "length" variables of some sort | ||
| "syscall/js.copyBytesToJS": (ret_addr, dest_addr, source_addr, param4, param5) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The calling convention changes have changed this function conceptually to the following:
func copyBytesToJS(returnValue *struct{int; bool}, dst *ref, srcPtr *byte, srcLen, srcCap uintptr)The following three rules apply to it:
- large return values are passed as a pointer-to-struct and prepended to the parameter list
int64/uint64(thereftype) are passed as a pointer-to-value- slices are split into 3 parts: the pointer to the underlying array, the length, and the capacity.
So yes, param4 is len and param5 is cap.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. I'll update things accordingly over the next few days. 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any chance you can take a look at this PR? The next release is getting close.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, I can make time this weekend. 😄
|
Is this PR still valid? if so, any chance of it being able to bring it back to life? |
|
No idea, haven't touched Go at all in months. Might as well close it, and if there turns out to be need for it in future it can be re-opened or re-submitted. |
|
@deadprogram Looking back at this now, it turns out this PR is still needed after all. 😉 |
|
Wasn't able to re-open this PR for some unknown reason (GitHub technical issue?), so recreated it in #933. |
3 participants
It's working in initial testing, but could likely be improved somewhat. 😄