fitzgen edited issue #1065:
To write a functional language compiler using this IR, tail call eliminations would be desirable. Are there any plans to support this? I couldn't find any details in the docs.
fitzgen commented on issue #1065:
FYI, Wasmtime is gaining a
Config::wasm_tail_call
method and--features tail-call
CLI flag in https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/6774 and (unless you're on s390x) once that lands you can start running.wasm
s with tail calls on Wasmtime!As a reminder, tail calls won't be enabled by default until we
- [ ] resolve the
tail
calling convention performance regression (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/6759)- [ ] get s390x support for tail calls (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/6530)
- [ ] and meet all the other usual standards for enabling a Wasm feature by default: https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-implementing-wasm-proposals.html#enabling-support-for-a-proposal-by-default
alexcrichton closed issue #1065:
To write a functional language compiler using this IR, tail call eliminations would be desirable. Are there any plans to support this? I couldn't find any details in the docs.
alexcrichton commented on issue #1065:
Tail calls are now enabled by default in Wasmtime except for s390x, so I think this is done.
Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 13:07 UTC