Skip to content

[Stack Switching] Fuzz Stack Switching #7834

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

Open
wants to merge 94 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kripken
Copy link
Member

@kripken kripken commented Aug 15, 2025

  • Disable stack switching in ClusterFuzz, as V8 isn't ready yet. Also in our V8 fuzzing.
  • Save a list of valid exception tags (not every tag can be thrown/caught) and use
    those from exception handling places.
  • Other minor fuzzer fixes as needed.

@kripken kripken requested a review from tlively August 15, 2025 20:13
case HeapTypeKind::Cont:
WASM_UNREACHABLE("TODO: cont");
case HeapTypeKind::Cont: {
auto funcType = Type(heapType.getContinuation().type, NonNullable);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
auto funcType = Type(heapType.getContinuation().type, NonNullable);
auto funcType = Type(heapType.getContinuation().type, Nullable);

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nulls would just trap. But I guess we should cover that too. I can change this to use nulls rarely like we do elsewhere.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

WASM_UNREACHABLE("TODO: cont");
case HeapTypeKind::Cont: {
auto funcType = Type(heapType.getContinuation().type, NonNullable);
return builder.makeContNew(heapType, makeRefFuncConst(funcType));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not allow this to be an arbitrary expression with the expected type?

Copy link
Member Author

@kripken kripken Aug 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, yeah, I don't think it could recurse in a bad way. I'll try that.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

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