Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / PR #11634 update fxprof-processed-profile to 0...

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 06 2025 at 01:01):

pchickey opened PR #11634 from bytecodealliance:pch/fix_11633 to bytecodealliance:main:

in order to drop the fxhash dependency. Closes #11633

prtest:full

I took a guess at the updates required for changes to the fxprof-processed-profile api. I don't actually know enough about the profiling code to know if that exact path has test coverage.

<!--
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.html

Please ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 06 2025 at 01:01):

pchickey requested fitzgen for a review on PR #11634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 06 2025 at 01:01):

pchickey requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #11634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 06 2025 at 01:01):

pchickey requested wasmtime-default-reviewers for a review on PR #11634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 06 2025 at 01:01):

pchickey edited PR #11634:

in order to drop the fxhash dependency. Closes #11633

prtest:full

I took a guess at the updates required for changes to the fxprof-processed-profile api. I don't actually know enough about the profiling code to know if that exact path has test coverage.

The cargo vet audit of the crate's changes was straightforward - there is no unsafe, its all datastructure mangling. But I don't actually know these datastructures.

<!--
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.html

Please ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 06 2025 at 02:58):

pchickey commented on PR #11634:

Apparently the test suite doesn't even smoke test this (which I will fix by adding a cli test like vtune's) but at the moment it requires StaticSchemaMarker::name to be executed at least once, UNIQUE_MARKER_TYPE_NAME was not sufficient. I'll have to figure something out to put there.

[p.hickey@KVKD0WG7VF:wasmtime/tests]% cargo run -p wasmtime-cli -- --profile=guest all/cli_tests/print_env.wat
    Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.38s
     Running `/Users/p.hickey/src/wasmtime/target/debug/wasmtime --profile=guest all/cli_tests/print_env.wat`

thread 'main' panicked at crates/wasmtime/src/runtime/profiling.rs:326:9:
internal error: entered unreachable code
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 07 2025 at 22:20):

alexcrichton submitted PR review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 08 2025 at 17:25):

pchickey updated PR #11634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 08 2025 at 17:31):

pchickey has enabled auto merge for PR #11634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 08 2025 at 18:15):

pchickey merged PR #11634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 21 2025 at 20:35):

kayabaNerve commented on PR #11634:

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem this made it into 37.0.0. Mind if I ask why not/for a 37.0.1?

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 22 2025 at 11:33):

alexcrichton commented on PR #11634:

It's intentional this didn't make 37, and you can read up more about our release process at https://docs.wasmtime.dev/stability-release.html.

Given that 37.0.0 is now released and this is a somewhat nontrivial backport I would be hesitant to backport. Would it be ok to wait for Wasmtime 38? Or do you have another reason for wanting to get this in sooner?

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 22 2025 at 21:37):

kayabaNerve commented on PR #11634:

Thanks for the explanation! Apologies, I'm just a downstream consumer so I'm largely out-of-the-loop.

No, no need, just would've been 'nice' to tidy up my deny.toml. If the trees have already sufficiently diverged, I won't request the effort be made.

Thanks again!

Last updated: Dec 06 2025 at 07:03 UTC