wasm: move implementation details into WasmVm abstraction layer.#47
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Piotr Sikora <piotrsikora@google.com>
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: If they are not already assigned, you can assign the PR to them by writing The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
@jplevyak in the interest of cleaning up the interface, I pulled (I'll migrate cc @silentdai |
Signed-off-by: Piotr Sikora <piotrsikora@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Piotr Sikora <piotrsikora@google.com>
jplevyak
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not opposed to this, but it does add some noise. If you like it better, then feel free to merge. If you can wrap up a bit of larger repetitions in macros and you think it is cleaner I would appreciate it. I find that if the macro is defined directly above the repeated use it improves readability and cuts down on toil.
|
|
||
| void getInstantiatedGlobals(); | ||
|
|
||
| void getFunction(absl::string_view functionName, WasmCall0Void* f) override { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps we could wrap this repetition up in a macro?
Signed-off-by: Piotr Sikora <piotrsikora@google.com>
|
@jplevyak I agree that it adds a bit noise. Ideally, we'd be able to get/register any function passed as argument, but that doesn't seem to be possible. I definitely prefer that those methods are part of the runtime implementation, and not leaked into the abstraction layer, though... If you have any better idea on how to achieve that, I'm all ears. |
* Add Shared queues and test for both shared data and shared queues. Signed-off-by: John Plevyak <jplevyak@gmail.com>
* Patch 1 * Patch 3 * Patch 4 * Remove manual
Signed-off-by: Piotr Sikora piotrsikora@google.com