Skip to content
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

Jump to bottom

License disambiguation #206

Closed
eclipseo opened this issue Jan 20, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

License disambiguation #206

eclipseo opened this issue Jan 20, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@eclipseo
Copy link

The cargo.toml and README specify the license as Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception but the crate contains both LICENSE-APACHE and LICENSE-MIT files.
Please explain under what license is this program distributed.

Thanks.
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Sorry for the confusion! The intention is that everything here is Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception licensed. The wasm-smith crate was fixed in #210 and the wast crate is being clarified in #211

@eclipseo
Copy link
Author

Than's, I will report downstream.

alexcrichton added a commit to alexcrichton/wasm-tools that referenced this issue Nov 16, 2022
@alexcrichton
Change functions to have one return value (bytecodealliance#206)
509bcac 
This commit changes wit-defined functions to have precisely one return
value instead of a list of return values. This matches the upstream
component-model draft specification and canonical ABI. The main fallout
here is that the spidermonkey tests stopped testing multiple-returns
since while multi-value was implemented struct lifting/lowering is not
yet implemented. Otherwise this is relatively straightforward although
there are a few gotchas here and there as some language like JS, Python,
and C don't have native tuple types and we still want to generate
reasonable-ish code.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@alexcrichton @eclipseo