Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:08): Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:08):fitzgen requested wasmtime-compiler-s390x-reviewers for a review on PR #13590.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:08):fitzgen opened PR #13590 from fitzgen:remove-band_not-et-al to bytecodealliance:main:
They were immediately legalized into
op(x, bnot(y))so instead we just emit those instructions immediately inInstBuilderconvenience/backwards-compat methods.<!--
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
-->
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:08):fitzgen requested alexcrichton for a review on PR #13590.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:08):fitzgen requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #13590.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:17)::thumbs_up: cfallin submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:17)::memo: cfallin submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:18)::speech_balloon: cfallin created PR review comment:
Idle thought, but: I wonder if at least this case can't be written as a plain
implblock on theInstBuilder?I ask because while in some cases it definitely makes sense to write code to write code, in this case the template we splat out has only two variables, the macro name (
band_not) and underlying op (band), plus a custom doc-comment; it would not be many more lines of code to just write that three times, and far easier to find, debug, modify, etc.Up to you either way, just wanted to make sure we give it fair consideration.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:18):cfallin commented on PR #13590:
(Ignore the double-review; GitHub web interface is being flaky. r+ from me whether or not we refactor per the above)
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:41)::speech_balloon: fitzgen created PR review comment:
In isolation, I think that would be the right call, but given that all the existing
InstBuildermethods are defined here (some of which do use the instruction definitions in the meta crate) I think it is best to keep them together.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 21:41)::memo: fitzgen submitted PR review.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 22:10):fitzgen added PR #13590 Cranelift: Remove the {band,bor,bxor}_not instructions to the merge queue.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 22:34)::check: fitzgen merged PR #13590.
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jun 08 2026 at 22:34):fitzgen removed PR #13590 Cranelift: Remove the {band,bor,bxor}_not instructions from the merge queue.
Last updated: Jul 29 2026 at 05:03 UTC