cranelift / Issue #1414 Delete all code to invalidate exi... · git-cranelift

Stream: git-cranelift

Topic: cranelift / Issue #1414 Delete all code to invalidate exi...

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 08:29):

@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

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 09:01):

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.

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 09:07):

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 only cranelift and do not want wasmtime at all, I use only x86_64 code generation ... ?!

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 09:12):

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.

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 09:16):

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 day wasmtime become part of other project ? I would need to include whole some_other_project/wasmtime/cranelift ?

Seems like it was done for persons that cannot use git submodule update --recursive command ((

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 10:17):

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.)

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 12:12):

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 to bytecode vm (like LLVM) or bytecode toolchain or other fancy name and make wasmtime as sub-project:
bytecode_vm
  |_
    \_ cranelift
  |_
    \_ wasmtime
It would make more sense ...

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 12:53):

tschneidereit commented on Issue #1414:

But according that I have read from this comment, it would be better to rename wasmtime to bytecode vm (like LLVM) or bytecode toolchain or other fancy name and make wasmtime as sub-project

I 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.

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 13:02):

redradist commented on Issue #1414:

But according that I have read from this comment, it would be better to rename wasmtime to bytecode vm (like LLVM) or bytecode toolchain or other fancy name and make wasmtime as sub-project

I 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 ;)

GitHub (Jun 21 2020 at 17:36):

redradist edited a comment on Issue #1414:

@tschneidereit

But according that I have read from this comment, it would be better to rename wasmtime to bytecode vm (like LLVM) or bytecode toolchain or other fancy name and make wasmtime as sub-project

I 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: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC