[wasm] Encode function signatures, bodies, and names as separate sections.

[wasm] Encode function signatures, bodies, and names as separate sections.

R=binji@chromium.org
BUG=

Committed: https://crrev.com/4cb568ec5f091e5ce0c8ff97bb1da79395e57029
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#34641}

[titzer, 2016-03-09 22:00:14]

titzer@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jfb@chromium.org

[JF, 2016-03-09 22:02:44]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/wasm/test-wasm...
File test/mjsunit/wasm/test-wasm-module-builder.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/wasm/test-wasm...
test/mjsunit/wasm/test-wasm-module-builder.js:10: var debug = true;
?

[titzer, 2016-03-09 22:03:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/wasm/test-wasm...
File test/mjsunit/wasm/test-wasm-module-builder.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/wasm/test-wasm...
test/mjsunit/wasm/test-wasm-module-builder.js:10: var debug = true;
On 2016/03/09 22:02:44, JF wrote:
> ?

It's passed to the module builder to make it print. I'll flip it back.

[binji, 2016-03-09 22:20:17]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/diff/1/test/unittests/wasm/module-...
File test/unittests/wasm/module-decoder-unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/diff/1/test/unittests/wasm/module-...
test/unittests/wasm/module-decoder-unittest.cc:1072: // TODO(titzer): current
behavior treats empty functions section as missing.
OK, so I should emit an empty function section when I add this to sexpr-wasm?

[titzer, 2016-03-09 22:24:10]

On 2016/03/09 22:20:17, binji wrote:
> lgtm
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/diff/1/test/unittests/wasm/module-...
> File test/unittests/wasm/module-decoder-unittest.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/diff/1/test/unittests/wasm/module-...
> test/unittests/wasm/module-decoder-unittest.cc:1072: // TODO(titzer): current
> behavior treats empty functions section as missing.
> OK, so I should emit an empty function section when I add this to sexpr-wasm?

No, you should add either the old section or the triple (function signatures,
function bodies, names), with names being optional. Not both.

[titzer, 2016-03-09 22:31:06]

The CQ bit was checked by titzer@chromium.org

[titzer, 2016-03-09 22:31:06]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from binji@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1783593002/#ps20001
(title: "Added unittests")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-09 22:31:16]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1783593002/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1783593002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-09 22:50:40]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-09 22:51:55]

Description was changed from

==========
[wasm] Encode function signatures, bodies, and names as separate sections.

R=binji@chromium.org
BUG=
==========

to

==========
[wasm] Encode function signatures, bodies, and names as separate sections.

R=binji@chromium.org
BUG=

Committed: https://crrev.com/4cb568ec5f091e5ce0c8ff97bb1da79395e57029
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#34641}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-09 22:51:56]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/4cb568ec5f091e5ce0c8ff97bb1da79395e57029
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#34641}