beetrees opened PR #9076 from beetrees:f16-f128-aarch64-mvp
to bytecodealliance:main
:
This PR adds initial support for passing
f16
andf128
values around to the aarch64 backend. Support is added for theload
,store
,bitcast
,select
,f16const
andf128const
CLIF instructions, as well as thefp16
target feature.As a side effect of this PR generalising aarch64
bitcast
support, this PR fixes (for aarch64) #6104.
f16
/f128
issue: #8312
beetrees requested cfallin for a review on PR #9076.
beetrees requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #9076.
beetrees requested alexcrichton for a review on PR #9076.
beetrees requested wasmtime-fuzz-reviewers for a review on PR #9076.
beetrees updated PR #9076.
beetrees requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #9076.
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #9076:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @cfallin, @fitzgen
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "cranelift", "cranelift:area:aarch64", "cranelift:meta", "fuzzing", "isle", "wasmtime:api", "wasmtime:config"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- cfallin: isle
- fitzgen: fuzzing, isle
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.
Learn more.
</details>
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #9076:
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 nestedstruct
s).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>
cfallin submitted PR review:
Sorry for the delay on this one -- all looks reasonable to me. Thanks for this work!
cfallin commented on PR #9076:
@beetrees this needs a rebase to latest
main
I think (due to my delay, sorry); happy to merge once it's ready.
beetrees updated PR #9076.
beetrees commented on PR #9076:
Rebased
cfallin has enabled auto merge for PR #9076.
cfallin has disabled auto merge for PR #9076.
cfallin commented on PR #9076:
@beetrees it looks like some new lints are being enforced now (CI fail) -- would you mind taking a look?
beetrees updated PR #9076.
beetrees commented on PR #9076:
I've fixed the Clippy warnings.
cfallin has enabled auto merge for PR #9076.
cfallin merged PR #9076.
Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 12:05 UTC