[test] Bulk instructions with multiple tables

[rossberg]

The bulk proposal adds new table instructions, while this proposal adds multiple tables. The intersection of the two proposals has been implemented and spec'ced here after rebasing this on bulk, but we also need to extend the existing tests for those bulk instructions. In particular, test table.copy between different tables is a somewhat interesting case.

The respective tests are generated by scripts. @lars-t-hansen, would you or somebody else familiar with those scripts be willing to extend them?

[lars-t-hansen]

@rossberg, Yeah, I can look into that, we've probably updated them similarly on our side already. I'll ping you if I have further questions.

[fitzgen]

Just noticed that while the text format has x and y table indices for table.copy, the binary encoding still only has 0x00 0x00 placeholders. (Aside: maybe we should use s and d for "source" and "destination" instead of x and y? Or something else more descriptive.)

Additionally, the validation spec text does not take table indices into account, only mentions a hard-coded table[0]. (The execution spec text, on the other hand, does seem to take multiple tables into account).

Should I file new issue(s) for the binary encoding and validation bits, or is this issue appropriate for tracking these multi-table / non-zero table uses of table.copy?

[rossberg]

Ah, thanks! Yeah, I think having a single issue is sufficient.

[rossberg]

@fitzgen, fixed by #80, thanks!

[lars-t-hansen]

There also seem to be no call_indirect tests through tables other than the default table?

[rossberg]

@lars-t-hansen, good point. See #83.