alexcrichton commented on issue #5062:
Personally I've found that historically the spec test suite isn't really all that great at exercising compiler internals, so I'd expect to get a lot more bang-for-our-buck by updating fuzzing. Thinking again on this we should probably drop the
*_pooling
tests given the existence of thespectests
fuzzer we have to simplify the testing setup (but not here in this PR of course).Is the egraph implementation ready for overall enabling when fuzzing? If not perhaps this option could be added to fuzzing but only enabled for the
spectests
fuzzer?
cfallin commented on issue #5062:
Yeah, actually, that's totally fine with me too. Once #5020 lands we'll fuzz with-egraphs against no-egraphs so we'll have full coverage; I was thinking it might be nice to have a stopgap but that's close enough and the spectests are small enough that it's probably not worth it.
alexcrichton commented on issue #5062:
It looks like #5020 is only changing the
cranelift-fuzzgen
target, but would it also make sense to add this for Wasmtime's fuzzing?
cfallin commented on issue #5062:
Yes, actually, we should do that too; I'll follow up with a PR.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 16:03 UTC