Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 25 2025 at 14:42): Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 25 2025 at 14:42):bjorn3 opened PR #11744 from bjorn3:remove_unused_flags to bytecodealliance:main:
- Remove a bunch of unused flags
- Remove predicate settings
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 25 2025 at 14:42):bjorn3 requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #11744.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 25 2025 at 14:42):bjorn3 requested abrown for a review on PR #11744.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 25 2025 at 16:48):github-actions[bot] commented on PR #11744:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @cfallin, @fitzgen
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "cranelift", "cranelift:area:x64", "cranelift:meta", "isle"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- cfallin: isle
- fitzgen: isle
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 (Sep 25 2025 at 20:39):abrown submitted PR review:
I think I agree with the purpose behind this: it has always been a source of confusion to me when and how to use
has_*versususe_*. This would make that simpler — always just usehas_*. But I cannot remember well enough why the predicates existed back in the day so let me bring in others: @cfallin. @alexcrichton, any reason to keep them around?
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 25 2025 at 21:13):cfallin commented on PR #11744:
I think I agree with the purpose behind this: it has always been a source of confusion to me when and how to use
has_*versususe_*. This would make that simpler — always just usehas_*. But I cannot remember well enough why the predicates existed back in the day so let me bring in others: @cfallin. @alexcrichton, any reason to keep them around?As far as I can tell, this is a vestigial organ left over from the ancient instruction-recipes infrastructure -- I don't see any reason to keep them around personally. Thanks for the cleanup work here!
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 09:44):bjorn3 updated PR #11744.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 10:27):bjorn3 updated PR #11744.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 11:50):bjorn3 requested pchickey for a review on PR #11744.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 11:50):bjorn3 requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #11744.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 11:50):bjorn3 updated PR #11744.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 12:09):bjorn3 submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 12:09):bjorn3 created PR review comment:
Not sure if this still tests what it was supposed to test.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 12:09):bjorn3 submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 12:09):bjorn3 created PR review comment:
Does this comment need to stay?
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 12:11):bjorn3 updated PR #11744.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 14:46):github-actions[bot] commented on PR #11744:
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 (Sep 26 2025 at 20:11):alexcrichton submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 26 2025 at 20:11):alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Should be safe to delete, we can always add it back if something like this comes up in the future
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 01 2025 at 12:03):bjorn3 commented on PR #11744:
Gentle ping.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 01 2025 at 14:17):alexcrichton submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 01 2025 at 14:39):alexcrichton merged PR #11744.
Last updated: Dec 06 2025 at 06:05 UTC