(module
(rec
(type $0 (sub (shared (array v128 ))))
(type $1 (sub (shared (struct (field (mut (ref null $1 )))))))
(type $2 (shared (func (param (ref $5 )) (result i32 ))))
(type $3 (sub (func (param f64 ) (result contref))))
(type $4 (sub (shared (struct (field i32 ) (field i8 ) (field (ref null $8 )) (field (mut (ref (shared any)))) (field i32 )))))
(type $5 (func (param v128 f64 ) (result (ref null $1 ))))
(type $6 (sub $0 (shared (array v128 ))))
(type $7 (sub (shared (array v128 ))))
(type $8 (sub $4 (shared (struct (field i32 ) (field i8 ) (field (ref null $8 )) (field (mut (ref (shared any)))) (field i32 )))))
(type $9 (sub $4 (shared (struct (field i32 ) (field i8 ) (field (ref $8 )) (field (mut (ref (shared any)))) (field i32 ) (field (mut (ref null (shared extern ))))))))
(type $10 (shared (func (param (ref null $5 ) f64 (ref null $3 ) i64 (ref $2 ) nullcontref (ref null $1 )) (result (ref null $4 ) i32 (ref null $4 ) (ref $9 ) (ref null $11 )))))
(type $11 (sub $9 (shared (struct (field i32 ) (field i8 ) (field (ref $8 )) (field (mut (ref (shared any)))) (field i32 ) (field (mut (ref null (shared extern ))))))))
)
(export " func_482" func $0 ))
(@binaryen.js.called)
(func $0 (type $5 ) (param $0 v128 ) (param $1 f64 ) (result (ref null $1 ))
(local $2 (ref $1 ))
(struct.atomic.rmw.xchg acqrel acqrel $1 0
(local.tee $2
(struct.new_default $1 )
)
(struct.new $1
(struct.atomic.rmw.cmpxchg acqrel acqrel $1 0
(local.get $2 )
(struct.new_default $1 )
(struct.new_default $1 )
)
)
)
)
) $ bin/wasm-opt -all --fuzz-exec w.wat --heap2local
[fuzz-exec] export func_482
[fuzz-exec] note result: func_482 => null
[fuzz-exec] export func_482
[fuzz-exec] note result: func_482 => object(null)
[fuzz-exec] comparing func_482
values not identical! shared [ref (type $struct.0 (sub (shared (struct (field (mut (ref null $struct.0))))))) shared nullref] != shared nullref
[fuzz-exec] optimization passes changed results
This looks related to a worry we had back here:
#8491 (comment)
@tlively perhaps worth revisiting that, what do you think?
Reactions are currently unavailable
This looks related to a worry we had back here:
#8491 (comment)
@tlively perhaps worth revisiting that, what do you think?