wasmparser: avoid skipping locals to get OperatorsReader for a function body #2204
Conversation
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
alexcrichton
approved these changes
May 23, 2025
|
Nah yeah this all looks reasonable to me, thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR lets users turn a finished LocalsReader into an OperatorsReader, avoiding a need to ask the FunctionBody to skip through the locals again (as suggested at #2180 (comment) -- @alexcrichton if you prefer a different/better way to do this please feel free to ignore this one!).
This seems to yield roughly a 3-4.5% improvement in the
parse/tests,parse/bz2,parse/spidermonkey, etc. benchmarks.The validator was already doing this (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-tools/blob/main/crates/wasmparser/src/validator/func.rs#L82-L87) and is unchanged by this PR, so I didn't expect this to affect validation time -- although I am seeing a ~1.5-2% slowdown in the validate tests for reasons unknown (hopefully just random variation from how this is being compiled).