Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / PR #9061 Simplify ABI selection and tail call ...

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 01 2024 at 22:23):

alexcrichton opened PR #9061 from alexcrichton:simplify-abi-selection to bytecodealliance:main:

This commit simplifies the selection of an ABI for wasm functions now that all Cranelift backends implement tail calls. All wasm functions use the Tail calling convention except when the winch_callable tunable is enabled meaning that Winch-generated functions are being called.

This then additionally simplifies the activation of the tail call proposal. It's not unconditionally active and the same across all compilers. The Winch compiler is updated to return an error for unsupported instructions rather than panicking so the embedder API is suitable for feeding unsupported modules to Winch. This means that tail calls in Winch behaves similarly to GC in Cranelift or other unsupported proposals like SIMD in Winch.

<!--
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 (Aug 01 2024 at 22:23):

alexcrichton has marked PR #9061 as ready for review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 01 2024 at 22:23):

alexcrichton requested fitzgen for a review on PR #9061.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 01 2024 at 22:23):

alexcrichton requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #9061.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 01 2024 at 22:23):

alexcrichton requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #9061.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 02 2024 at 01:04):

github-actions[bot] commented on PR #9061:

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @saulecabrera

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

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

• saulecabrera: winch

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 (Aug 02 2024 at 01:04):

github-actions[bot] commented on PR #9061:

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 (Aug 02 2024 at 15:48):

fitzgen submitted PR review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 02 2024 at 15:48):

fitzgen created PR review comment:

Seems like, longer term, it would be nice if the visitor's Output was a Result. Not something we need to address now though, unless it is a pretty easy change.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 02 2024 at 16:16):

alexcrichton submitted PR review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 02 2024 at 16:16):

alexcrichton created PR review comment:

yeah I'm a bit wary to refactor most of the visitor to return Ok(()) at the end so I'll stick to this for now

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 02 2024 at 16:31):

alexcrichton merged PR #9061.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 21 2024 at 11:34):

saulecabrera submitted PR review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 21 2024 at 11:34):

saulecabrera created PR review comment:

I got to this comment while looking at Alex's comment in https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/9158/files#r1723917083 just wanted to say that this is on my radar, I had opened this issue a while ago, in order to refactor the internals to return Result instead of panicking, where applicable

Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 16:03 UTC