redradist commented on Issue #1414:
@alexcrichton
One question ... Why Cranelift was moved in wasmtime ?
Seems like Cranelift could be used not only for wasm target, but also as native compiler and so on
bjorn3 commented on Issue #1414:
I think the reason was to make it easier to coordinate changes that affect both Cranelift and Wasmtime. Cranelift can indeed be used for purposes other than wasm compilation.
redradist commented on Issue #1414:
@bjorn3
I think the reason was to make it easier to coordinate changes that affect both Cranelift and Wasmtime. Cranelift can indeed be used for purposes other than wasm compilation.
But it makes hard for other projects to integrate it as submodule !!
If I want onlycranelift
and do not wantwasmtime
at all, I use onlyx86_64
code generation ... ?!
bjorn3 commented on Issue #1414:
Just include the whole Wasmtime repo. For path dependencies, you have to use
wasmtime/cranelift/codegen
. For git dependencies cargo will search for crates in every directory: https://github.com/bjorn3/rustc_codegen_cranelift/blob/9c0d18c8db1e60343f61641a71d8b69bb1ad6233/Cargo.toml#L12-L15.
redradist commented on Issue #1414:
@bjorn3
Just include the whole Wasmtime repo. For path dependencies, you have to use
wasmtime/cranelift/codegen
. For git dependencies cargo will search for crates in every directory: https://github.com/bjorn3/rustc_codegen_cranelift/blob/9c0d18c8db1e60343f61641a71d8b69bb1ad6233/Cargo.toml#L12-L15.And then what ?
If one daywasmtime
become part of other project ? I would need to include wholesome_other_project/wasmtime/cranelift
?Seems like it was done for persons that cannot use
git submodule update --recursive
command ((
tschneidereit commented on Issue #1414:
@redradist please don't jump to conclusions quite this quickly, in particular if they involve assuming that we're all somehow incompetent.
We had good reasons to do this, see [my comment here for background].(https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/1185#issuecomment-591050388)
(Note also that compiling Wasmtime still requires the exact git submodule handling you mention.)
redradist commented on Issue #1414:
@tschneidereit
@redradist please don't jump to conclusions quite this quickly, in particular if they involve assuming that we're all somehow incompetent.
We had good reasons to do this, see [my comment here for background].(bytecodealliance/wasmtime#1185 (comment))
(Note also that compiling Wasmtime still requires the exact git submodule handling you mention.)
But according that I have read from this comment, it would be better to rename
wasmtime
tobytecode vm
(like LLVM) orbytecode toolchain
or other fancy name and makewasmtime
as sub-project:bytecode_vm |_ \_ cranelift |_ \_ wasmtime
It would make more sense ...
tschneidereit commented on Issue #1414:
But according that I have read from this comment, it would be better to rename
wasmtime
tobytecode vm
(like LLVM) orbytecode toolchain
or other fancy name and makewasmtime
as sub-projectI guess I'll just note your opinion on this. I disagree with it, but I also don't think it makes sense to continue this discussion, and hope that you don't expect us to go and change everything based on the argument you gave. A lot of thought and discussion has gone into this decision, and I'd once again kindly ask you to consider that there might be more to it than seems immediately intuitive to you.
redradist commented on Issue #1414:
But according that I have read from this comment, it would be better to rename
wasmtime
tobytecode vm
(like LLVM) orbytecode toolchain
or other fancy name and makewasmtime
as sub-projectI guess I'll just note your opinion on this. I disagree with it, but I also don't think it makes sense to continue this discussion, and hope that you don't expect us to go and change everything based on the argument you gave. A lot of thought and discussion has gone into this decision, and I'd once again kindly ask you to consider that there might be more to it than seems immediately intuitive to you.
It was just suggestion that will clear little bit why for example somebody integrates whole
wasmtime
, if it would named as I suggest, it would be clear that submodule is just toolchain ...But anyway it was suggestion, thank for clarifying your decision point ;)
redradist edited a comment on Issue #1414:
@tschneidereit
But according that I have read from this comment, it would be better to rename
wasmtime
tobytecode vm
(like LLVM) orbytecode toolchain
or other fancy name and makewasmtime
as sub-projectI guess I'll just note your opinion on this. I disagree with it, but I also don't think it makes sense to continue this discussion, and hope that you don't expect us to go and change everything based on the argument you gave. A lot of thought and discussion has gone into this decision, and I'd once again kindly ask you to consider that there might be more to it than seems immediately intuitive to you.
It was just suggestion that will clear little bit why for example somebody integrates whole
wasmtime
, if it would named as I suggest, it would be clear that submodule is just toolchain ...But anyway it was suggestion, thank for clarifying your decision point ;)
Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 13:07 UTC