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

Revert reference-types support #2311

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 12, 2024
Merged

Revert reference-types support #2311

merged 4 commits into from
Dec 12, 2024

Conversation

chipshort
Copy link
Collaborator

Mostly reverts #2289 (except for the cosmwasm-check CI change).
We have to revert this because wasmer does not support reference types for singlepass yet, so allowing them in the validation can be used to cause a panic while compiling the module.

@chipshort
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Mergifyio backport main

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Dec 12, 2024

backport main

✅ Backports have been created

Copy link
Member

@aumetra aumetra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Really unfortunate

@chipshort
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yup, definitely. The good thing is that we made them aware of it and they are prioritizing this for us now.

@chipshort chipshort merged commit 54ec247 into release/2.2 Dec 12, 2024
37 of 38 checks passed
@chipshort chipshort deleted the co/revert-2289 branch December 12, 2024 15:43
@webmaster128
Copy link
Member

Does this also mean we have no Rust 1.82+ support for compiling contracts to Wasm any time soon?

@chipshort
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Does this also mean we have no Rust 1.82+ support for compiling contracts to Wasm any time soon?

Unfortunately, yes. We need to wait for wasmer to actually support the reference types.
One other thing we could do is figuring out why exactly the 1.82 wasms require the reference-types and allow them just in that case (if wasmer even supports that case). We would have to filter out everything else in the Gatekeeper and the static analysis code.
But that would require some more research and work for what is just a workaround at the end, so I'm not sure if it's worth it.

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.

3 participants