Skip to content

[CI] Update to latest alpine linux container image. NFC #7381

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[CI] Update to latest alpine linux container image. NFC #7381

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sbc100
Copy link
Member

@sbc100 sbc100 commented Mar 20, 2025

I'm not sure why we were using the node flavored ones.

@sbc100 sbc100 requested review from dschuff and tlively March 20, 2025 00:22
dschuff
dschuff reviewed Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
tlively
tlively approved these changes Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@tlively tlively left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, but what's the goal here? Just to be on a more recent version as a matter of principle, or to get a better compiler, or something else?

@sbc100
Copy link
Member Author

sbc100 commented Mar 20, 2025

LGTM, but what's the goal here? Just to be on a more recent version as a matter of principle, or to get a better compiler, or something else?

Just a couple of cleanups:

  1. Fix outdated comment
  2. Use a more logical (and fixed) OS image.

@sbc100 sbc100 changed the title [CI] Update to latest alpine linux container image [CI] Update to latest alpine linux container image. NFC Mar 20, 2025
@sbc100
Copy link
Member Author

sbc100 commented Mar 20, 2025

Any idea what that one test would be failing?

Looks like its test/spec/expected-output/func_ptrs.wast.log.. and there is nothing being generated instead of 83 : i32

@sbc100
[CI] Update to latest alpine linux container image
c472169 
I'm not sure why we were using the `node` flavored ones.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dschuff dschuff dschuff approved these changes

@tlively tlively tlively approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@sbc100 @dschuff @tlively