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

bump wasmparser to 0.94 #8119

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

Ekleog-NEAR
Copy link
Collaborator

Opening this as a draft PR, as we should not merge until near/wasmer#150 makes it in and we upgrade wasmer in nearcore to that version (we should upgrade wasmer and wasmparser around the same time)

extended_const: false,
mutable_global: true,
relaxed_simd: false,
saturating_float_to_int: true,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Similar comment as with the same change in wasmer PR – I believe these should be false, to avoid enabling new instructions we don't intend to support at this point in time. Especially because pwasm parser does not support them, but also enabling new instructions better be a conscious decision rather than an accidental one and keeping that in a separate PR would really help that.

@@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ skip = [
{ name = "digest", version = "=0.9.0" },
{ name = "sha2", version = "=0.9.9" },

# near-vm-runner and wasmer-compiler-near use 0.78.2
{ name = "wasmparser", version = "=0.78.2" },
# wasmtime uses 0.84.0
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a reason for us to not update wasmtime? The most recent version (3.0) depends on 0.93.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not really; it’s just that it felt like something unrelated to the topic at-hand

@Ekleog-NEAR
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closing in favor of #8323, which does this plus much more

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants