Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Dec 13 2021 at 17:27): Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Dec 13 2021 at 17:27):github-actions[bot] commented on issue #3598:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @peterhuene
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "wasmtime:api"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- peterhuene: wasmtime:api
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 (Dec 13 2021 at 17:59):github-actions[bot] commented on issue #3598:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @peterhuene
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "wasmtime:c-api"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- peterhuene: wasmtime:c-api
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 (Dec 13 2021 at 18:22):pchickey commented on issue #3598:
Also, should this imply
WasmBacktraceDetails::Disable? What backtrace details will actually be emitted if the addr map isnt present?
Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Dec 13 2021 at 18:54):alexcrichton commented on issue #3598:
Could we put a guard around ...
Ah yes indeed!
Also, should this imply
WasmBacktraceDetails::Disable?While we won't get precise locations within functions (which also means no filenames/line numbers) we do still get the function names in the backtrace due to the
.eh_framesection. I think because of that we probably don't want to forcibly disable backtraces for now, although in the future we could probably drop the.eh_framesection as well (at least on Unix) if it's a size concern.
Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 13:07 UTC