Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cranelift-module: Add support for passing a StackMapSink when defining functions #2739

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 19, 2021

Conversation

wrbs
Copy link
Contributor

@wrbs wrbs commented Mar 18, 2021

Discussed in #2738

This follows the convention set by the existing method of passing a TrapSink by adding another argument for a StackMapSink.

@wrbs
Copy link
Contributor Author

wrbs commented Mar 18, 2021

It looks like these test failures are unrelated to the change

Copy link
Contributor

@pchickey pchickey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. That CI failure has been happening elsewhere as well, I'll see what we can do to resolve it...

@cfallin
Copy link
Member

cfallin commented Mar 18, 2021

It looks like the CI failure happened on the merge commit of #2723 yesterday (though the CI on the PR itself was green) -- possibly related? cc @bnjbvr / @alexcrichton

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

There's a bit more discussion about CI on #2736 (comment), I haven't had a chance to dig in yet myself

@github-actions github-actions bot added cranelift Issues related to the Cranelift code generator cranelift:module labels Mar 18, 2021
…g functions

Fixes bytecodealliance#2738

This follows the convention set by the existing method of passing a
TrapSink by adding another argument for a StackMapSink.
@pchickey pchickey merged commit 0394a01 into bytecodealliance:main Mar 19, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cranelift:module cranelift Issues related to the Cranelift code generator
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants