[wasm][debugger] Support passing negative/positive numbers to methods. #92754
Conversation
|
Tagging subscribers to 'arch-wasm': @lewing Issue DetailsPassing negative number generates different
|
ilonatommy
changed the title
| ("test.GetDefaultAndRequiredParam(3, +2)", TNumber(5)), | ||
| ("test.GetDefaultAndRequiredParam(3, -2)", TNumber(1)), | ||
| ("test.GetDefaultAndRequiredParam(-123l, -1.1f)", TNumber("-124.1", isDecimal: true)), // long, float | ||
| ("test.GetDefaultAndRequiredParam(-0.23)", TNumber("-32768.23", isDecimal: true)), // double, short |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is missing the short argument.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Short is optional param of value -32768, the test is checking for optional params to be used correctly and I wanted to keep this convention for this case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
("test.GetDefaultAndRequiredParam(3, +2)", TNumber(5)),
("test.GetDefaultAndRequiredParam(3, -2)", TNumber(1)),
("test.GetDefaultAndRequiredParam(-123l, -1.1f)", TNumber("-124.1", isDecimal: true)),- These 3 are not testing optional parameters.
- Also, for the cases that call
GetDefaultAndRequiredParam- add comments mentioning what optional type is being tested.
Do the changes in this PR also affect passing a negative number as an argument to a method?
radical
left a comment
radical
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Other than the feedback on the test, LGTM 👍
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
3 participants
Passing negative number generates different
ExpressionSyntaxtype than passing a positive number. Because we classify method arguments by casting them to Syntax types, we were not handling negative case at all (throwingUnable to evaluate method 'GetDefaultAndRequiredParam'. Unable to write into binary writer, not recognized expression type: PrefixUnaryExpressionSyntax").Same with positive numbers, passing
+2should behave the same as passing2.SyntaxKindhas a lot of possible values (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.codeanalysis.csharp.syntaxkind) and we probably are not handling all of them yet. Logging this into #65864.