I agree it's stupid. I think worrying about representing the length of 1 object filling the entire address space is stupid, wether the address space is 2^32 or 2^64
> representing the length of 1 object filling the entire address space
Isn't this about encoding the WASM address space itself, inside the outer computer's 64 bit address space?
It's only a slight annoyance if it doesn't get to be quite the normal limit, but since they're changing some of this code anyway, and they're going to need even bigger numbers in the future, it makes sense to do a proper adaptation.
