Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / PR #12315 Fixed size list, host side

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jan 11 2026 at 21:12):

cpetig opened PR #12315 from cpetig:fixed-size-list-host to bytecodealliance:main:

Implements https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/12279

Includes all the commits on https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/10619 , so that one should be merged first.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jan 11 2026 at 22:47):

github-actions[bot] commented on PR #12315:

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @fitzgen

<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "fuzzing", "wasmtime:api", "wasmtime:c-api", "wasmtime:config"

Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:

• fitzgen: fuzzing

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 (Jan 11 2026 at 23:46):

github-actions[bot] commented on PR #12315:

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 Config method, 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 Config method, 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 nested structs).

  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.

Learn more.

</details>

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jan 12 2026 at 17:03):

cpetig submitted PR review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jan 12 2026 at 17:03):

cpetig created PR review comment:

I really hope that array support in Rust gets more complete. I remember the days before const generics but it is still painful enough.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jan 12 2026 at 17:05):

cpetig submitted PR review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jan 12 2026 at 17:05):

cpetig created PR review comment:

(this was meant to refer to these lines: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/12315/files#diff-a4b664609b4ea6b8ab8e0ea68d1d58509eee5571e08e6d7e10aec913a85836d6R2936-R2962 )

Last updated: Jan 29 2026 at 13:25 UTC