Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / PR #14637 bforest: Allocate all nodes upfront ...


view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:29):

adamrk opened PR #14637 from adamrk:abk/bforest-split-oom to bytecodealliance:main:

When we need to split nodes in a bforest to perform an insertion, allocate
the worst case depth + 1 nodes all up front so that the insertion
atomically completes or fails. Otherwise the bforest can drop nodes that
were in the tree.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:29):

adamrk requested alexcrichton for a review on PR #14637.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:29):

adamrk requested wasmtime-fuzz-reviewers for a review on PR #14637.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:29):

adamrk requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #14637.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:33):

:memo: adamrk submitted PR review.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:33):

:speech_balloon: adamrk created PR review comment:

A bunch of these tests change because the node ids are different now. This is because 1) when reserving, the nodes end up in the free list in the opposite order in which the were allocated and 2) we reserve the worst case each time instead of the exact amount needed. I was thinking that making those changes isn't worth the added complexity.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:34):

alexcrichton unassigned alexcrichton from PR #14637 bforest: Allocate all nodes upfront for insertion.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:34):

alexcrichton requested fitzgen for a review on PR #14637.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 20:35):

alexcrichton commented on PR #14637:

I'll defer this to @fitzgen as he's more familiar with this than I, but I'd recommend against a test-only bool to fail allocations and instead relying only on the OOM test/fuzz harness we have for handling that. Could the tests be moved over there for OOM-related things?

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 09 2026 at 21:00):

adamrk updated PR #14637.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 10 2026 at 01:19):

github-actions[bot] added the label cranelift on PR #14637.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 10 2026 at 01:19):

github-actions[bot] added the label fuzzing on PR #14637.

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 10 2026 at 01:20):

github-actions[bot] commented on PR #14637:

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @fitzgen

<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "cranelift", "fuzzing"

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

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.

Learn more.
</details>


Last updated: Oct 11 2026 at 04:10 UTC