Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / PR #8634 cranelift: expand umbrella crate with...

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 14:21):

tertsdiepraam requested abrown for a review on PR #8634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 14:21):

tertsdiepraam requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #8634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 14:21):

tertsdiepraam requested wasmtime-default-reviewers for a review on PR #8634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 14:21):

tertsdiepraam opened PR #8634 from tertsdiepraam:more-crates-in-umbrella to bytecodealliance:main:

<!--
Please make sure you include the following information:

• If this work has been discussed elsewhere, please include a link to that
  conversation. If it was discussed in an issue, just mention "issue #...".

• Explain why this change is needed. If the details are in an issue already,
  this can be brief.

Our development process is documented in the Wasmtime book:
https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-development-process.html

Please ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->

Closes https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/7772

This adds the interpreter, jit, module, native & object crates to the umbrella crate. All crates (including the existing codegen and frontend crates) are feature gated. However, codegen and frontend are default features, so backwards compatibility is retained if default features is not set to false. I wasn't quite sure which crates to include, but in my own project, I already depend on jit, module and native. Based on their descriptions, interpreter and object also seemed relevant as public API. I might have missed some other important crate.

I figured this would be an easy fix, although I understand if the umbrella crate should not have all these crates. In that case, feel free to close this PR :)

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 14:54):

bjorn3 submitted PR review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 14:54):

bjorn3 created PR review comment:

All other crates depend on cranelift-codegen, so I don't see any reason why you should be able to disable it.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 17:19):

tertsdiepraam updated PR #8634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 17:20):

tertsdiepraam submitted PR review.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 17:20):

tertsdiepraam created PR review comment:

Makes sense! Updated!

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 17:21):

tertsdiepraam updated PR #8634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 16 2024 at 21:27):

elliottt submitted PR review:

This all seems reasonable to me, thanks for fixing this!

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 17 2024 at 00:04):

elliottt commented on PR #8634:

The publish step is failing because cranelift-jit has a dev-dependency on cranelift for its examples. Can we move the jit examples out of cranelift-jit to break this cycle? Perhaps the umbrella crate would be a better place to centralize stuff like this now.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 17 2024 at 01:15):

elliottt updated PR #8634.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 17 2024 at 01:16):

elliottt commented on PR #8634:

(@alexcrichton mentioned that the cycle could be broken by using a { path = ... } version instead, so I went ahead and pushed that change. I'll merge this once it passes branch CI)

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (May 17 2024 at 01:52):

elliottt merged PR #8634.

Last updated: Oct 23 2024 at 20:03 UTC