alexcrichton opened PR #11062 from alexcrichton:fix-cranelift-fuzz to bytecodealliance:main:
This commit fixes a typo mistake from #10588 where the option specified there was actually invalid. This error got covered up by accident when generating the fuzz test case, however, meaning that the error was not noticed. This changes builder configuration to using
.unwrap()more liberally for options that are all known should be enabled.<!--
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
-->
alexcrichton requested fitzgen for a review on PR #11062.
alexcrichton requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #11062.
fitzgen submitted PR review:
Maybe define a helper for set/enable that documents why we are unwrapping so that someone doesn't clean this up to use "proper" error propagation in a couple years?
alexcrichton commented on PR #11062:
That should already be done with the
arbitrary::Resultreturn type I think? That's what guided me to change some?to.unwrap()here
fitzgen commented on PR #11062:
Ah, I overlooked the function signature change. That makes perfect sense, nice little tick.
fitzgen merged PR #11062.
Last updated: Dec 06 2025 at 06:05 UTC