ci: Add ubuntu-24.04-arm regular CI and release artifact

[ADKaster]

Fixes #2533

the arm64 artifact will be called wabt-$VERSION-ubuntu-24.04-arm.tar.gz without any changes to the release-archive action.

[sbc100]

Its kind of unfortunate that this is called -arm and not -arm64 or -aarch64 (which are the two names by which I know this architecture).

Perhaps we can avoid directly using the OS names in artifact names?

For example, can we map ubuntu-20.04 to linux-x64 and ubuntu-24.04-arm to linux-arm64`?

[ADKaster]

Yeah I can't say I understand the naming that GitHub went with. The only thing that might make sense sense is that since these images are "partner images" from some contract they have with ARM Ltd., it was named by a program manager? From a developer standpoint it should really be -arm64 or -aarch64. I'll see if I can come up with a not-awful mapping in the action's yml.

[ADKaster]

Oh that's fun. Looks like there's a gcc-13 ICE in the arm64 build.

https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt/actions/runs/13704562600/job/38326587596?pr=2558#step:14:2337

That something y'all want to report or should I spin up an arm64 box to do it myself?

  +during GIMPLE pass: fre
  +out/test/wasm2c/spec/simd_f32x4/simd_f32x4.17.c: In function ‘w2c_simd__f32x4__17__wasm_max0x2Dabs’:
  +out/test/wasm2c/spec/simd_f32x4/simd_f32x4.17.c:1115:6: internal compiler error: in eliminate_stmt, at tree-ssa-sccvn.cc:6915
  + 1115 | v128 w2c_simd__f32x4__17__wasm_max0x2Dabs(w2c_simd__f32x4__17__wasm* instance, v128 var_p0, v128 var_p1) {
  +      |      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  +0xb18f3f internal_error(char const*, ...)
  +	???:0
  +0xb0e00b fancy_abort(char const*, int, char const*)
  +	???:0
  +0xf24d4f eliminate_dom_walker::eliminate_stmt(basic_block_def*, gimple_stmt_iterator*)
  +	???:0
  +Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using -freport-bug).
  +Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
  +See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-13/README.Bugs> for instructions.

[sbc100]

I've never actually used declare before. Looks powerful, and scary :)

[sbc100]

Should we just drop the -14 and use -x64 here too?

[SoniEx2]

isn't macos-14 an arm64?

[sbc100]

I don't know .. if its is then we should call this -macos-arm64

[sbc100]

Is there not still an x86 macos runner available?

[SoniEx2]

not since macos-14, aside from large runners (which don't really count since you can't use them for free)

[sbc100]

Can we call this -macos-arm64 then?

I guess that means that x86_64 macos users don't get pre-compiled releases?