Skip to content

[test] Add test for STACK_OVERFLOW_CHECK=2 with BINARYEN_PASS_DEBUG #28126

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
nexxeln wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[test] Add test for STACK_OVERFLOW_CHECK=2 with BINARYEN_PASS_DEBUG #28126

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 7 additions & 0 deletions test/test_other.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -14663,6 +14663,13 @@ def test_stack_overflow(self):
cflags=['-O1', '--profiling-funcs'],
assert_returncode=NON_ZERO)

# BINARYEN_PASS_DEBUG validates after each binaryen pass, which catches
# invalid IR from the stack-check pass that STACK_OVERFLOW_CHECK=2 runs.
@with_env_modify({'BINARYEN_PASS_DEBUG': '1'})
def test_stack_overflow_check_pass_debug(self):
self.set_setting('STACK_OVERFLOW_CHECK', 2)
self.do_runf('hello_world.c', 'Hello, world!\n')

@sbc100 sbc100 Nov 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the binaryen fix looks good, but I'm not sure we need to add tests like this (basically a test of binaryen) here in the emscripten repo? This seems like something that should be tested in binaryen. Having said that I guess it could make sense for emscripten to be tested with BINARYEN_PASS_DEBUG in some cases?

@kripken WDYT?

@tlively tlively Nov 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suggested making this PR because otherwise we don't have an end-to-end regression test for the user-visible bug. The new test in this PR currently fails, and it will be good to see that it passes after the Binaryen change rolls in. Actually landing this PR is another matter; I would be satisfied just seeing the test go from passing to failing on CI without landing it.

@sbc100 sbc100 Nov 2, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fair enough.. i don't feel too strongly either way.

@kripken kripken Nov 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sgtm too to verify the test goes from red to green. No need to land the test itself. The Binaryen side has enough coverage.


@also_with_wasm64
@parameterized({
'': ([],),
Expand Down
Loading