The addition of `cfg(wasm)` was an oversight on my end that has a number
of downsides:
* It was introduced as an insta-stable addition, forgoing the usual
staging mechanism we use for potentially far-reaching changes;
* It is a breaking change for people who are using `--cfg wasm` either
directly or via cargo for other purposes;
* It is not entirely clear if a bare `wasm` cfg is a right option or
whether `wasm` family of targets are special enough to warrant
special-casing these targets specifically.
As for the last point, there appears to be a fair amount of support for
reducing the boilerplate in specifying architectures from the same
family, while ignoring their pointer width. The suggested way forward
would be to propose such a change as a separate RFC as it is potentially
a quite contentious addition.
54dc7cebce