Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / issue #4747 cranelift: Add inline stack probin...

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 21 2022 at 11:26):

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #4747:

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @peterhuene

<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "cranelift", "cranelift:area:aarch64", "cranelift:area:machinst", "cranelift:area:x64", "cranelift:meta", "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 (Sep 01 2022 at 01:08):

jameysharp commented on issue #4747:

This needs what I hope will be an easy rebase; cranelift/codegen/src/machinst/abi_impl.rs got merged into cranelift/codegen/src/machinst/abi.rs, so your changes just need to be applied to that file instead.

Otherwise, I think this looks like it does what you say it should do. @cfallin, now that it's implemented as a pseudo-instruction, what do you think?

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 01 2022 at 09:01):

afonso360 commented on issue #4747:

Thanks for the reminder! I didn't realize this had a conflict.

There is an additional question that I'd like to ask for opinions. After this PR (as it is) we have two flags, enable_probestack and probestack_strategy. Should we merge those flags by adding a disabled arm to probestack_strategy?

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Sep 01 2022 at 20:51):

cfallin commented on issue #4747:

Otherwise, I think this looks like it does what you say it should do. @cfallin, now that it's implemented as a pseudo-instruction, what do you think?

Looks great to me! I think this is the right approach. I didn't look closely at the emission code but the sequence in the comments seems reasonable, as does the unrolled-vs-looping optimization.

Last updated: Oct 23 2024 at 20:03 UTC