Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 27 2026 at 17:02): Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 27 2026 at 17:02):fitzgen closed issue #1252:
Apologies that this didn't click earlier, but is it intentional that we do not support virtual fs in snapshot0 aka wasi_unstable? #701 landed (hooray!) but after careful re-examination I've noticed it never touched any of the old snapshot code. It's not a deal breaker per se unless we perceive anybody in the future wanting to use virtual fs with the old WASI ABI.
The thing that really worries me though is that I've noticed both snapshots (wasi_unstable and wasi_snapshot_preview1) really diverge and in places where they supposedly shouldn't. Virtual fs is one of those places (but there are more!). My question here is, given that
wiggleis hopefully round the corner (I plan to have a fully working port in the coming week), @pchickey and I can start figuring out a way of polyfilling syscall logic to different ABI snapshots which would make the out-of-sync issue essentially disappear (to a degree ofc!).Also, I remember having a discussion about this with @alexcrichton sometime in the past. I think we ought to really figure out a way of testing _all_ supported by Wasmtime WASI snapshots to avoid this type of errors in the future.
Oh man, what started as a simple question, ended up as an essay. Apologies!
cc @iximeow
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 27 2026 at 17:02):fitzgen commented on issue #1252:
Future WASI implementations will have VFS support but not old snapshots except perhaps incidentally. Closing.
Last updated: Aug 30 2026 at 10:08 UTC