Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 20 2025 at 19:34): Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 20 2025 at 19:34):cpetig opened PR #10619 from cpetig:fixed-size-list to bytecodealliance:main:
Implement the necessary parts of fixed size lists (see https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/pull/384 ) to enable runtime testing in wit-bindgen.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 20 2025 at 20:45):github-actions[bot] commented on PR #10619:
Label Messager: wasmtime:config
It looks like you are changing Wasmtime's configuration options. Make sure to
complete this check list:
[ ] If you added a new
Configmethod, you wrote extensive documentation for
it.<details>
Our documentation should be of the following form:
```text
Short, simple summary sentence.More details. These details can be multiple paragraphs. There should be
information about not just the method, but its parameters and results as
well.Is this method fallible? If so, when can it return an error?
Can this method panic? If so, when does it panic?
Example
Optional example here.
```</details>
[ ] If you added a new
Configmethod, or modified an existing one, you
ensured that this configuration is exercised by the fuzz targets.<details>
For example, if you expose a new strategy for allocating the next instance
slot inside the pooling allocator, you should ensure that at least one of our
fuzz targets exercises that new strategy.Often, all that is required of you is to ensure that there is a knob for this
configuration option in [wasmtime_fuzzing::Config][fuzzing-config] (or one
of its nestedstructs).Rarely, this may require authoring a new fuzz target to specifically test this
configuration. See [our docs on fuzzing][fuzzing-docs] for more details.</details>
[ ] If you are enabling a configuration option by default, make sure that it
has been fuzzed for at least two weeks before turning it on by default.[fuzzing-config]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/ca0e8d0a1d8cefc0496dba2f77a670571d8fdcab/crates/fuzzing/src/generators.rs#L182-L194
[fuzzing-docs]: https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-fuzzing.html
<details>
To modify this label's message, edit the <code>.github/label-messager/wasmtime-config.md</code> file.
To add new label messages or remove existing label messages, edit the
<code>.github/label-messager.json</code> configuration file.</details>
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 21 2025 at 15:13):alexcrichton submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 21 2025 at 15:13):alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Could this be done with a new helper? I'm wary of defining an O(n) thing here and relying on LLVM to optimize it. This could make
list<T, BigNumber>excessively slow in debug builds of Wasmtime for example.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 21 2025 at 15:13):alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Same as above, I think it'd be best to avoid "feigning" a record here and using a dedicated computation for fixed-size lists to avoid O(n) in the length of the list
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 21 2025 at 15:13):alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Since these are relatively targeted
todo!()items mind filing an issue as a tracking issue and tagging these with// FIXME(#NNNN)?
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Apr 21 2025 at 15:13):alexcrichton created PR review comment:
This is a bit of an interesting case. Effectively what this is doing is unrolling
list<T, N>unconditionally, but I don't think that's necessarily appropriate for largeN. I think it's fine to unroll for smallN(perhaps only whenTis small?). Ideally this would have a budget of sorts where a fixed numberCostis divided by the cost ofT, and that's the maximal unrolling. That way we don't generate exponential amounts of code here forlist<list<T, N>, N>.Basically what I'm saying is that I think we must implement the loop-based variant of translating lists, not just the fully-unrolled version of translating lists.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jul 12 2025 at 15:37):cpetig updated PR #10619.
Last updated: Dec 06 2025 at 07:03 UTC