alexcrichton commented on issue #3670:
FWIW the
wasmtime-runtime
crate is effectively a "private" crate which is not maintained from the perspective of having a pleasant-to-use API, instead it's existence is basically entirely for thewasmtime
crate. In that sense while we could merge this now there's very little preventing a future refactoring from undoing this.Is there any particular reason though why you're using
wasmtime-runtime
as opposed towasmtime
?
Mrmaxmeier commented on issue #3670:
Is there any particular reason though why you're using
wasmtime-runtime
as opposed towasmtime
?I'm experimenting with Cranelift and a toy JIT. wasmtime-runtime's
catch_traps
andMmapMemory
have been very useful for this :slightly_smiling_face:FWIW the
wasmtime-runtime
crate is effectively a "private" crate which is not maintained from the perspective of having a pleasant-to-use API, instead it's existence is basically entirely for thewasmtime
crate. In that sense while we could merge this now there's very little preventing a future refactoring from undoing this.^ This would be fine for me – I'm currently just rebasing this patch every once in a while and wanted to clean up
git
dependencies :)
alexcrichton commented on issue #3670:
Ok, sounds reasonable to merge in that case!
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 16:03 UTC