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 AArch64: Improve the type checks for IR operations #3342

Merged

Conversation

akirilov-arm
Copy link
Contributor

There were cases where the AArch64 backend assumed that an IR operation would always operate on certain types (the most likely reason being that the corresponding WebAssembly instruction did not cover anything else), even though the definition of the IR operation imposed no constraints like that.

There were cases where the AArch64 backend assumed that an IR
operation would always operate on certain types (the most likely
reason being that the corresponding WebAssembly instruction did
not cover anything else), even though the definition of the IR
operation imposed no constraints like that.

Copyright (c) 2021, Arm Limited.
@github-actions github-actions bot added cranelift Issues related to the Cranelift code generator cranelift:area:aarch64 Issues related to AArch64 backend. labels Sep 13, 2021
Copy link
Member

@cfallin cfallin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is great -- thanks in particular for the changes that bubble up a CodegenError rather than panic'ing; we need to move the backends toward panic-safety in general and this is a big help.

@cfallin cfallin merged commit 1925865 into bytecodealliance:main Sep 13, 2021
@akirilov-arm akirilov-arm deleted the aarch64_lowering_type_checks branch September 13, 2021 17:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cranelift:area:aarch64 Issues related to AArch64 backend. cranelift Issues related to the Cranelift code generator
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants