Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 13:41): Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 13:41):jeffcharles requested cfallin for a review on PR #10180.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 13:41):jeffcharles requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #10180.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 13:41):jeffcharles requested dicej for a review on PR #10180.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 13:41):jeffcharles opened PR #10180 from jeffcharles:winch-simd-conversions to bytecodealliance:main:
<!--
Please make sure you include the following information:
If this work has been discussed elsewhere, please include a link to that
conversation. If it was discussed in an issue, just mention "issue #...".Explain why this change is needed. If the details are in an issue already,
this can be brief.Our development process is documented in the Wasmtime book:
https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-development-process.htmlPlease ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->
Part of #8093. Adds the following instructions:
*x*.convert_**x*.demote_**x*.extend_**x*.narrow_*
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 13:41):jeffcharles requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #10180.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 13:42):saulecabrera commented on PR #10180:
I can help with this review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 13:42):saulecabrera requested saulecabrera for a review on PR #10180.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 14:44):github-actions[bot] commented on PR #10180:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @saulecabrera
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "winch"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- saulecabrera: winch
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.
Learn more.
</details>
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 23:32):MarinPostma created PR review comment:
Is it generally fine to consider those memory access trusted? It seems to me that, in this specific case, this is fine, but the callee cannot assume that address will indeed be aligned and non-trapping, no?
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 04 2025 at 23:32):MarinPostma submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 05 2025 at 10:42):saulecabrera submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 05 2025 at 10:42):saulecabrera created PR review comment:
Is it generally fine to consider those memory access trusted?
It is -- as a rule of thumb, any accesses emitted by the compiler as part of loading and storing/loading spilled values are considered trusted.
On the other hand, any accesses emitted by the compiler by virtue of translating any Wasm instruction which explicitly interacts with linear memory is considered untrusted and _must_ comply with the semantics dictated by such instruction, like alignment and trapping.
Practically speaking what that means is that if the operand used in this instruction is an incorrect address, this memory access will likely result in a segmentation fault rather than in a Wasm trap.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 05 2025 at 12:46):saulecabrera submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 05 2025 at 22:21):jeffcharles updated PR #10180.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Feb 06 2025 at 15:30):saulecabrera merged PR #10180.
Last updated: Feb 28 2025 at 01:30 UTC