Skip AutoAssertNoGc checks for applicable signatures#8807
Merged
Conversation
This commit skips the safety checks of `AutoAssertNoGc` for the duration of host calls where the types involved are statically known to not perform any GCs (e.g. integers and floats). This helps recover some performance loss from indirect calls made on entry/exit of an `AutoAssertNoGc` scope when the `gc` feature is enabled in Wasmtime.
fitzgen
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2024
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This commit skips the safety checks of
AutoAssertNoGcfor the duration of host calls where the types involved are statically known to not perform any GCs (e.g. integers and floats). This helps recover some performance loss from indirect calls made on entry/exit of anAutoAssertNoGcscope when thegcfeature is enabled in Wasmtime.This is in reference to this discussion