Hi Damien, > On May 11, 2025, at 5:00 PM, Damien Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/5/25 1:20 am, Damien Stewart wrote: >> Comparing with var_p0=var_p0@entry=262000 and var_p1=2016478208 p1 looks >> corrupted. There could some possibility of endian corruption. I reversed it >> and got $41578 or 267640 which is within range of 262000 in p0. Why p0 looks >> fine only p1 doesn't I don't know. Being register based means PPC has less >> chance of endian errors if registers are used to pass parameters. So if a >> code block could pass all generic data in registers, process it natively, >> then return result in registers, there would be less chance of endian >> errors. I've also read originally WASM was endian agnostic or processed in >> the native endian of host CPU, and was designed that way, but later they >> decided to change it to be non portable and hack it to be little endian only >> because that's defacto standard endian now days. Or something like that. > > Quoting myself here. I got it! I've got evidence it's endian corruption. :-)
Since you’re already working on this issue, please take the time to file an upstream bug report. And if you come up with a patch, please forward it upstream. I don’t have the time and nerves to work on this issue. Adrian
